Contents

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Hon. Ravi Parmar: Somewhere in the House — I haven’t been able to locate him yet, but maybe in the back — is my Uncle Paul. Oh, there he is, right in front of me. Clearly, my eyes aren’t working. He is visiting the precinct, not for the first time but the first time that it is operating. He has been here for my swearing-in, but I told him: “You haven’t experienced a question period yet, so you’ve got to come down.”

He is an outstanding family member, works for B.C. Ferries, I think going on almost 30 years. He’s the best sign guy a candidate could ask for. Every campaign he’ll take time off and spend all day long putting up signs, well into the evening. He did that when I first started off as a school trustee, and it’s continued on as an MLA. I think so highly of him.

We are both Canucks fans, and that’s really tough. Anyone who was watching the Canucks game last night knows that the first period didn’t go very well, but a 6-2 win over the Lightning, so both of us were very happy when we were watching that.

Would the House please join me in making Paul Parmar feel very welcome.

[1:35 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I have two introductions.

The first one is to introduce a group that’s actually not present; they’re watching us online. That is the class of Mr. Neil Walsh and education assistant Katie Bowell at St. Ann’s Catholic School in Quesnel. They are studying politics and government.

I had the pleasure of speaking with their class last week and introducing them to the process of making a bill by dividing them into three parties: the bicycle party, the truck party and the car party. They had a great time with it. It was a good lively exercise. I wanted to introduce them and welcome them to viewing us online and watching our procedures.

If you could make them very welcome.

My second introduction is to the Invasive Species Council of British Columbia, who are in the precinct today to discuss the concerns they have with introduced species, whether they be flora or fauna. I welcome them to the precinct, and I hope that they have a very fruitful and useful trip here, meeting with both opposition and government.

Hon. Spencer Chandra Herbert: Members joined us earlier today to mark Louis Riel Day, which was yesterday, but here in the House, we marked it today with Métis Nation B.C. Thank you to all members who joined us in the Hall of Honour.

I want to welcome, no strangers to many of us here, acting president of Métis Nation B.C. Melanie Allard; and of course, Métis Nation B.C. leadership as well who’ve joined her: Patrick Harriott, Susie Hooper, Debra Fisher, Colette Trudeau, Marc Riddell, Jeremy Twigg, Kamron Bajwa, Arsalan Anwar.

There were many others, including one of the cutest babies I’ve seen, aside from my own a few years ago.

Anyway, it’s wonderful to see you all. Thank you for joining us here in the House to honour Riel and Métis culture. Merci.

Ward Stamer: I’m pleased to introduce my consistency assistant, Nicholas Hamson, who joins us in the gallery today.

Nicholas is a third-year communications student at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, specializing in public relations. In addition to serving the people of Kamloops–North Thompson in my constituency office, he has worked on campaigns in both British Columbia and the United States, with a particular passion for engaging young people in our democratic process.

I ask the House to please join me in welcoming Nicholas to our chamber.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: History was made today. A Surrey-based radio program, Radio Swift program team came especially to the Legislature today for a live broadcast from here to the people of this province. They were here, I think, from 7 a.m. until 1 p.m. I know many members from both sides got the opportunity to speak to them.

We have with us a good friend, Dr. Jasbir Romana. He’s a good friend, and he’s also a very well-known, respected radio host. He has always been very fair, very neutral and very objective in his approach to the talk show. I want to say thanks to him.

We also have…. I don’t think the next individual needs any introduction. Jinny Sims is with us, former MLA and minister here. She’s now the host at Radio Swift in Surrey. I want to wish her good luck with that.

They are joined by their team, Jashanpreet Grewal, Meninder Grewal and Supinder Grewal. I want to say thanks to them and to Kurant Stacy and the partners for sending the radio program here.

I want the House to please make them feel welcome.

Scott McInnis: I want to echo the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation in welcoming the delegation from Métis Nation B.C. here.

A big special shout-out to my friend, region 4 director from the Kootenays, Debra Fisher, who is a fierce advocate for children and education back home in the East Kootenay.

Welcome all of you, especially Ms. Fisher.

[1:40 p.m.]

Hon. Brittny Anderson: Today I have 17 folks from the Youth Climate Corps joining us here. After question period, we are going to be meeting with the Premier.

The Youth Climate Corps started out in my riding, and because of the support of the Premier and our government, it’s now expanding across British Columbia, and we are really hoping that it is going to expand across Canada.

I would like to introduce them. We’ve got Natalie Gerum, Hermender Singh Kailley, Donna Hall, Delie Lawley, Kate Addison, Abbey Piazza, Tracey Maynard, Tracey Mitchell, Owen Cornell, Mikasa Quaife, Keenan Miles, Mo Garg, Jesse Seifert, Bobby Davidson, Michaela Phillips, Aida Goma Petit and my very dear friend Ben Simoni, the executive director.

Please will this House make them feel very welcome.

Everyone, stand.

Linda Hepner: I want to echo a welcome for radio host Jinny Sims and Dr. Jasbir Ramana from Surrey and Swift 1200 radio as well as their team: Jashanpreet Grewal, Supinder Khatta and Meninder Grewal.

They’ve done interviews this afternoon and this morning from both sides of the House, and they’re very popular radio hosts in my city of Surrey.

Harwinder Sandhu: Before I do my introduction, I would like to extend my heartfelt welcome to the Radio Swift team, their incredible team.

I’m also honoured today to welcome very special and inspiring guests in the gallery, Dhahan Prize for Punjabi literature winners. The Dhahan Prize celebrates Punjabi language. This prize was created to call greater attention to the wealth of literary work produced in Punjabi around the world.

We all know we live in one of the most diverse provinces, and our mother tongues and language are our identity, a big part of our identity, and define who we are. Once we lose our mother tongue, our language, our identity can be jeopardized. This group is doing amazing work to just do that, to strengthen Punjabi literature.

The guests here today I want to welcome: Mudassar Bashir, Balbir Parwana, Bhagwant Rasulpuri, Harinder Dhahan, and Barj Dhahan, Joyce Astifan, Kuljinder Shoker, Gurtek Shoker, Wanda Dekleva, Rai Aziz Ullah Khan, as well as Ajit Thandi and Manjit Thandi.

Would the House please join me to welcome this amazing group of people who are spreading knowledge over ignorance and sharing hope over despair.

Ji Ayian Nu. Welcome.

Lynne Block: I was honoured this morning to have the B.C. Youth Council come in and interview me. I’d met several of them before at one of the UN symposiums in Vancouver. The calibre of their questions and the professionalism that they displayed really stand in good stead. I think they will be amazing future politicians and amazing future educators, whichever they decide to do in the future.

If you give them a warm welcome, the B.C. Youth Council. Thank you so much.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’d like to welcome back to this place Amelia Hill. I can’t see her right now, but she’s somewhere over here. She used to work in my office before she left for another position.

I just want to say we miss her. We miss her spirit, her energy and all her passion and always wish her the best and welcome her back here.

Steve Kooner: I’d also like to welcome a friend, a community leader, Barj Dhahan, who’s done exceptional work for promoting Punjabi literature.

Can the House please welcome him again.

Hon. Randene Neill: So many amazing people in the stands today.

I just want to give a shout out, similar to the member opposite, to the Invasive Species Council of B.C. I met with them this morning, and they were fantastic. Their local grassroots campaigns, like squeal on pigs, do some really tremendous work. I’m really happy with all of them.

[1:45 p.m.]

And a big shout-out to my constituency adviser from Sechelt. Lauri Paul is here today, and her sister Lisa.

Thank you so much for coming, and thank you for the work that you do.

Hon. Jessie Sunner: I’d like to welcome to the House Susan Sanderson, who is the executive director of the Realistic Success Recovery Society and has been a longtime advocate for mental health and addictions in our communities.

Even more so, she’s been a very staunch advocate on our own EDA in my riding. I think she’s been a member of our party since before I was born.

I really thank you for all the work that you do in our community and welcome you to the House today.

Ian Paton: I want to welcome three constituents of mine from Tsawwassen. A very well-known design company, Sarah Gallop Design…. Sarah is here with her husband, Rob, and their daughter Maddie. She’s a student at Southpointe Academy in Tsawwassen.

They got to meet the Speaker and the Leader of the Opposition today. So happy to have them over here. I had to pay for their lunch.

Anyways, please welcome Rob, Sarah and their daughter Maddie.

Amshen / Joan Phillip: I just wanted to wish, on this special day, my husband, Dr. Grand Chief Stuart Phillip, and my little, well, younger brother, Georgie Carter, a happy birthday.

Susie Chant: A group of us met with Arthritis Research Canada at lunchtime today. I just want to acknowledge their very people-centred work. The research they do, the knowledge they share, everything that they do is completely focused on people, and for that, I am suitably grateful.

I just want to acknowledge the folks that we listened to today: Alison Hoens, who is a physiotherapist; Dr. Linda Li, who is the senior scientist; and Dr. Diane Lacaille, who is the scientific director and also a constituent in my riding. I am so grateful to have such remarkable people doing such remarkable work.

If we could all give them a hand.

Heather Maahs: I would like to take this opportunity to wish my oldest son, Gordon, a happy 45th birthday.

Amna Shah: I just want to take a second to welcome a couple of people.

I’d like to welcome some longtime friends and dear advocates of the community, Kamron Bajwa and Arsalan Anwar. I know we’ve known each other for a very long time. I want to thank them for letting me know that they were here today, because I could hear Kamron’s laughter from the front Legislature steps while I was in my office.

Thank you for that.

I also want to welcome a dear friend, Amelia Hill, who’s up in the gallery. She’s a community builder. She’s a former colleague and a friend, and she is a reminder to me about how love and compassion have no bounds and no limits.

Would the House join me in making them feel very welcome.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: I have a special guest with me today in the precinct. I do apologize for her being late for question period, but I think that you will not be surprised to know that former MLA Jennifer Rice is joining us here today. I apologize for her tardiness, but she does assure me she will be here today.

I also just wanted to give a shout-out to my colleague and wish him a happy belated birthday.

George Anderson: I would like to welcome Greg Brown, Don Helgeson and Duane Seibel from Sea Wolves Men’s Cancer Pack. This is a group of individuals who are focused on….

They’re standing up over there, just in case you want to know.

It’s a Vancouver Island–based non-profit supporting men with cancer. They’ve gone out to bring these cancer packs to individuals. They’re advocating for funding.

I hope that the entire House will help us make them feel extremely welcome.

[1:50 p.m.]

Steve Morissette: It’s always a thrill for me to introduce somebody from my riding, because it happens so rarely that they travel this far. I’m honoured to introduce Dr. Marcia Braundy up in the gallery. She’s a longtime Slocan Valley resident and volunteer with our riding association.

Across the aisle, I think we all agree that we stand on the shoulders of our volunteers. She’s a wonderful, strong woman leader.

Please join me in welcoming Marcia today.

Hon. Ravi Parmar: I see that a good friend, Sanjeev Ahluwalia, is in the House, hanging out with the Radio Swift team. He is a new author of a book, Reflections of a Nomadic Mind. I encourage folks to check it out. I think there is a copy in the Legislature as well.

Would the House please join me in making him feel very welcome.

Hon. Jagrup Brar: I also would like to welcome our dear friend Nirmal Mehroke and his wife, Tejinder Mehroke. Nirmal has served as the president of Surrey-Fleetwood riding for 15 years, and he and his wife have been selflessly active with the riding to serve the community, participating in programs, organizing programs, advocating for the local issues for 30 years.

They were here to attend the convention, and they’re here today to watch question period.

I would like to ask everybody to please make them feel welcome.

Rohini Arora: I have so many friends up in the gallery today, but I wanted to just take a moment and shout out Hermender Singh Kailley, who is the secretary-treasurer of the B.C. Federation of Labour.

It was just his 50th birthday, so if everyone would just join me in welcoming him and celebrating his birthday.

Harman Bhangu: I just want to wish my mom, once again, a happy birthday. It was her birthday on Saturday.

Getting together with family, seeing her around the grandkids, all her sacrifice, hard work…. Without that, I would not be here in this House today. So I just want to wish her a happy birthday again.

And I love you, Mom.

Members’ Statements

Marpole Museum
and Historical Society

Sunita Dhir: I rise today to recognize the important contributions of the Marpole Museum and Historical Society, located in the historic Colbourne House in my constituency of Vancouver-Langara.

For more than five decades, the society has helped preserve and share the many layers of Marpole’s history, from the deep and enduring presence of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm people to the stories of early settlers, tradespeople and families who shaped the neighbourhood we know today. Their work ensures that Marpole’s past is not only remembered but understood as part of our collective story.

During my visits to the museum, I have been truly inspired by the dedication of its volunteers, their efforts in restoring exhibits, maintaining the heritage home, curating artifacts and engaging visitors. They reflect remarkable commitment and care. Colbourne House, lovingly maintained, offers a rare and tangible window into Marpole’s early 20th-century life and reminds us of how far our city has come.

Recently I had the pleasure of attending the society’s annual Christmas market. The event was filled with creativity, warmth and community spirit, with neighbours gathering, local artisans showcasing their work and volunteers welcoming everyone with open hearts. It was a beautiful example of how community heritage is kept alive not only through artifacts but through connections.

I would like everybody to check out this remarkable place at the corner of Southwest Marine Drive and 71st Avenue and experience a piece of Marpole’s amazing living history.

[1:55 p.m.]

Wilma’s Transition Society

Á’a:líya Warbus: Today I rise to acknowledge and honour the incredible work of Wilma’s Transition Society. This is an organization that has supported women and children in the Fraser Valley for nearly 40 years.

Wilma’s was founded on a simple but powerful belief that all women deserve safe, dignified opportunities to build a prosperous life. Nearly four decades later that belief continues to guide everything that they do.

From emergency shelter to longer-term supportive housing, Wilma’s provides a continuum of care that meets women where they’re at and walks with them as they move toward healing and stability. Their programs are trauma-informed, culturally grounded and deeply rooted in and with community support.

Last week I had the honour of touring their newest development, P’esk’a La:lem, a stage 3 housing building built exclusively for women and their children to continue to thrive and remain connected to important supports. I was guided by the executive director, Tammy, whose leadership and dedication have helped expand essential services for these women and their families.

This represents more than housing in our community. It’s a place of cultural connection and empowerment. It reflects Wilma’s ongoing commitment to providing culturally informed supports, honouring women’s existing strengths and building permanent pathways to long-term success. Through the dedication of service and decades of existence in our community, they’ve helped countless women and children escape violence, overcome homelessness and rebuild their lives with courage and hope. Their impact is felt across generations.

In a time when legal organizations like Rise Women’s is calling for more secure housing options for women who are trying to flee domestic violence, we really need places like Wilma’s and their continued work to be supported by all members of this House.

I just want to thank Wilma’s Transition Society today, and I look forward to continuing and supporting their vital work in our community.

Louis Riel Day

Garry Begg: I recognize that we are gathered today on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən People, known today as the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations.

Yesterday, on November 16, people across British Columbia and Canada gathered to recognize Louis Riel Day, marking the anniversary of his death in 1885. This year, the 140th anniversary of his death, reminds us that his story remains central to our shared history.

Louis Riel was a tireless advocate for the Métis Nation and one of Canada’s most significant historical leaders. He is remembered as the founder of Manitoba, a defender of rights and a Canadian hero whose vision continues to shape our country.

I acknowledge the Métis Nation British Columbia delegation who are with us here today, led by acting president, Melanie Allard.

Your presence is a powerful reminder of the living legacy of Riel’s work and the strength of the Métis people in this province.

Recognizing Louis Riel is part of our ongoing path with Métis people in this province toward meaningful reconciliation. It’s a time to reflect on historic and present-day injustices faced by Métis and all Indigenous Peoples and to honour the nearly 98,000 Métis people in B.C. who contribute to the vitality of our communities.

We also recognize the incredible organizations that support Métis people across the province, including Métis Nation B.C., Métis Community Services Society of B.C., Métis Commission for Children and Families of B.C. and the British Columbia Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. Their dedication and community service are invaluable as we continue moving forward together.

Louis Riel Day is not only a solemn tribute but also a celebration of Métis culture, resilience and identity. His courage and legacy call on us all to learn, reflect and stand alongside Métis people in advancing reconciliation.

[2:00 p.m.]

Mary Sjostrom

Sheldon Clare: It is with great sadness that I rise today to remember my friend Mary Sjostrom, Cariboo regional director for area A and former mayor of Quesnel. Mary was a tireless advocate for the North, someone with tremendous empathy and institutional memory, having been in public service in the Quesnel area for decades.

Her recent roles included Cariboo regional district director for Red Bluff, south Quesnel; Cariboo Chilcotin hospital district vice-chair; as well as sitting on the finance, policy, emergency preparedness, solid waste management, Fraser Basin Council and NDIT regional advisory committees.

First elected in 1999, Mary would go on to serve 15 years on Quesnel city council, including six years as mayor. She also served as director and president of the North Central Local Government Association and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and she was a life member of both organizations.

Community volunteer work included the palliative care association, Quesnel Sunrise Rotary, B.C. Winter Games, Relay for Life and the Quesnel Community Foundation. A memorable contribution Mary made was championing the Quesnel Communities in Bloom team to highlight the beauty of the city of Quesnel.

I first met Mary when we both served on the board of governors at the College of New Caledonia. We became strong colleagues and friends. It was an honour to work with her in various capacities, but most of all over the past year in my role as MLA. My office and I were in frequent contact with Mary as we worked through the various issues facing our constituents.

Mary’s contributions to our community, province and country are profound, and her death is a great loss for us all.

We thank you, Mary.

My condolences, Butch. Mary will not be forgotten.

Mayo Landicho and Jendhel Sico
and Canadian Filipino
Online Publication

Mable Elmore: I wish to share a story about grief, healing and hope. Mayo Landicho, a celebrated multimedia artist, was one of the performers who graced the stage at the Lapu-Lapu Day festival in Vancouver on April 26, 2025.

Little did Mayo know that that day would end in immense grief. His goddaughter Jendhel Sico, a talented young woman, was killed in the horrific tragedy.

After her funeral, Mayo gathered her family and close friends at his tattoo studio on Main Street. He closed the shop for the day and transformed the space for a private memorial. As Jendhel’s favourite songs filled the studio, Mayo tattooed members of her family, etching on their bodies the memory of her beautiful soul.

It was Mayo’s tribute to his goddaughter and a therapy. Honouring his goddaughter through his art was his own way of beginning the journey to healing.

This story was originally told in the new edition of the online-only publication canadianfilipino.net. It’s part of the all-volunteer journal’s ongoing storytelling series called “Healing Through Kapwa.” The series seeks to tell stories of healing and resilience and to build solidarity within and outside the Filipino community. The series is a demonstration of canadianfilipino.net’s continuing work to reflect the voices and aspirations of Filipinos in British Columbia and across Canada.

The online-only publication started in 2016 and is managed by the Maple Bamboo Network Society. The board of the Maple Bamboo Network Society includes, among others, Rey Pagtakhan, who was the first Filipino to be elected as Member of Parliament in Canada; Eleanor Laquian, an author and advocate of immigrant rights; and Emmy Buccat, a professional in the fields of communication, marketing and events management.

Let us recognize the work being done by canadianfilipino.net for their continuing contributions to journalism and for promoting dialogue and understanding.

Business Excellence Awards
in Prince George

Rosalyn Bird: I rise today to recognize the outstanding achievement celebrated at the 40th annual Business Excellence Awards hosted by Prince George Chamber of Commerce on November 1. This milestone event once again highlighted the strength, innovation and resilience of small and medium-sized businesses in our region.

SMEs continue to be the backbone of our economy, representing more than 98 percent of all Canadian businesses and employing 70 percent of our workforce. In Prince George, their role is even more profound. These businesses are run by our neighbours, our friends and our families. They create opportunities, drive local innovation and help shape the character of our community.

[2:05 p.m.]

The awards ceremony showcases just how dedicated our local entrepreneurs are, across every sector from food and beverage to technological innovation, entertainment, philanthropy and more. Each nominee and recipient demonstrated the kind of leadership that keeps northern British Columbia moving forward.

I want to offer special acknowledgement to the Prince George Citizen, honoured with the Lifetime Achievement Award. The Citizen has served as a pillar of local journalism, documenting our history, amplifying community voices and ensuring that the stories of Prince George are told with accuracy, integrity and care. This recognition reflects the profound and enduring impact the Citizen has had on our region.

As we celebrate these accomplishments, we must also recognize that small and medium businesses continue to face significant challenges. Yet they consistently show up for our communities.

It is vital that we continue to champion and support their work in every way we can by reducing barriers and ensuring access to the tools they need to help create an environment where small and medium businesses can continue to thrive not just in Prince George but across British Columbia.

The Business Excellence Awards remind us that when we invest in our local business, we invest in the prosperity and future of our entire community.

Oral Questions

Cowichan Tribes Land Title
Court Case and Property Rights

John Rustad: The Premier tells British Columbians he wants to protect homeowners, yet somehow private property rights in the Cowichan case were not argued by B.C. He says the appeal is only about, and I quote, “clarity.”

There is some clarity that the Premier could provide for the people of British Columbia. Cabinet, no doubt, has received legal advice likely warning its government to defend private property rights in court.

Will the Premier waive cabinet confidentiality and make public any legal opinions he or his cabinet received regarding private property rights in the Cowichan case, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I have to confess it’s a strange request, given that all of our legal documents and our arguments are on the public record and filed for everybody about the arguments we made in that case.

I just want to assure the public, as I do every time I stand up here and speak about this, that we’re taking this very seriously, including the protection of private property owners. We have a team of lawyers that are on top of it and working not only with the Cowichan but also with the landowners themselves, directly engaging with them so we can understand the impacts and where the province needs to step in.

We’re also actively engaging in our appeal and a stay application on the matter.

The Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

John Rustad: Well, I find it interesting, considering the legal advice that goes to cabinet comes from her ministry, that she isn’t even aware of it. I think that is very telling in terms of what legal advice their cabinet may or may not have received in terms of the Cowichan case.

However, the Premier tells Indigenous leaders this appeal “isn’t really about the Cowichan” while he tells homeowners that they should “rightly be worried.” Just like private property and Aboriginal title can’t coexist, does he really believe that both of these other statements he made are true?

If the Premier truly believes in transparency, will he come clean with the taxpayers and publicly declare exactly why he decided to leave the protection of private property rights up to Richmond, and Richmond alone, as per what the judge has said in her findings?

Hon. Niki Sharma: Again, I’ve said this over and over again. We’ve said this publicly and it’s in all of our legal steps that it was very important to us that we uphold the private property rights of landowners as we’ve worked through the difficult issues of reconciliation with our First Nations governments, and we’ve been doing that.

I invite the member to take a look at our arguments that were at the Supreme Court of B.C. and what we were pursuing on appeal and the work that we’re doing and also when he was in cabinet in 2015 and issued the first response to civil claim in this matter. The arguments that we made are very similar to ones at that stage.

Waste Dumping Site on
Cowichan Tribes Land

Sheldon Clare: In late 2023, Sperling Hansen Associates conducted an environmental assessment of the Cowichan River toxic waste pile and estimated it at nearly 300,000 cubic metres.

[2:10 p.m.]

There is no way that this report didn’t end up on previous minister George Heyman’s desk.

Can the Environment Minister please confirm whether or not her ministry received this report?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you to the member for the question.

We’ve heard people’s concerns about this site, and we are listening. That’s why we issued a pollution prevention order on October 2, 2025, with the awareness of the Cowichan Tribes. We take this matter very seriously.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: We will be verifying compliance with the pollution prevention order at the site. We believe in working together with the Cowichan Tribes, in working on the pollution abatement order and the pollution orders that we issue.

The Speaker: Member has supplemental.

Sheldon Clare: Three hundred thousand cubic metres is an awful lot of waste. There is no way that this government was not aware of that.

Can you please tell me: when did this government know about this waste, and why was it not acted on sooner?

Hon. Laanas / Tamara Davidson: Thank you again to the member for your questions.

I have to disagree. We have a variety of tools that we use in the Ministry of Environment. We use these tools to protect the environment and look at illegal waste dumps.

The responsibility of the cleanup rests with the polluter. As the province, our role here is to ensure that those cleanups are done. We will continue to do this work with the Cowichan Tribes and with all of our community members.

B.C. First Nations Justice Strategy

Rob Botterell: In British Columbia, Indigenous women make up 4 percent of the population, yet 49 percent, or roughly one in two, women in provincial custody are Indigenous. Public Safety Canada tells us that it costs over $250,000 per year to incarcerate an Indigenous woman and almost $150,000 to incarcerate an Indigenous man. Imagine what redirecting even a fraction of those funds could do if invested instead in vocational training, education, food security and stable housing.

This government committed to implementing the B.C. First Nations justice strategy in 2020. It is intended to lead to better outcomes in the justice system for Indigenous people.

To the Attorney General, when will this government fully implement the B.C. First Nations justice strategy and protect Indigenous people from unjust incarceration and police aggression?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I just want to thank the member for the question. It allows me to talk about some very important work that we’re doing with the First Nations Justice Council.

In a short amount of time, we were able to open up 15 Indigenous justice centres across the province. Those centres are made up of really strong Indigenous leaders and legal counsel that are there to represent Indigenous people that are facing charges in the criminal justice system in order to help them with, I think, what the member is raising, a very important concern and commitment we have to mitigate against the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in our justice system and the systemic racism that exists when they face the criminal justice system.

They are doing incredible work. My hands go out to all of those people on the front lines in Indigenous justice centres that every day are working through files with Indigenous people and Indigenous women, with results. We have just launched a Prince George diversion centre that’s there to help young people with their first offence that’s a minor offence and connect them with their culture so we can change their lives in partnership with Indigenous communities.

I’m really proud of that work. I know it takes a lot of effort, and my hands go up to the First Nations Justice Council for helping partner with us on that work.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[2:15 p.m.]

RCMP Critical Response Unit
Actions and Deployment

Rob Botterell: Clearly, as the Attorney General mentioned, the government may say it’s committed to safeguarding Indigenous people from an unjust system, yet we continue to see the province promote policing practices that further this violence.

For example, the RCMP’s controversial and heavily criticized critical response unit will be enforcing this government’s new fast-tracked resource and infrastructure projects. This unit is being deployed despite the RCMP’s own investigation into its abuse of force and authority both in Fairy Creek and in Wet’suwet’en territory. The RCMP have admitted that this unit overstepped its authority, yet still this government sees its deployment fit.

To the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, why is this government authorizing the deployment of the CRU, and how does this government plan on deploying this unit against First Nations opposition to projects such as Ksi Lisims?

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’d like to thank the member opposite for the question, which speaks to, I think, shared concerns that we have around not only the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system but about ensuring that law enforcement does their work in a culturally informed and safe way for vulnerable communities, particularly First Nations.

This is why our ministry works in partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General on the Indigenous justice strategy and on closely working with police, including the RCMP. My ministry meets with representatives of First Nations communities on a regular basis — including, most recently at the First Nations Leadership Gathering — to hear directly about any concerns about the RCMP so that in the work of superintendence, my ministry can work with law enforcement very directly to ensure that communities, Indigenous communities, are safe.

Government Handling of Land Title
Cases and Property Rights

Dallas Brodie: For four years, the Kamloops Indian Band has been pretending to have found the remains of 215 murdered children, perpetuating the worst lie in Canadian history. Instead of defending British Columbians from this baseless allegation of mass murder, the Premier, who I see is not here today….

The Speaker: Member. Member, we don’t identify members who are here or not.

Dallas Brodie: Retracted, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier lashes out at anyone who dares to question the claim. Now the very same band is advancing an Aboriginal title claim over the entire city of Kamloops, a land grab that threatens the private homes of 100,000 private residents. I condemn this band’s outrageous and opportunistic claim, and I pledge my full support to the innocent and hard-working people of Kamloops.

My question to the Premier is this. Whose side is he on, the homeowners of B.C. or the tribes seizing title to their properties?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I find myself often at a loss for words when this member raises what is a very painful and shameful line of denialism for residential schools.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Niki Sharma: On behalf of survivors in this House, I want to condemn that.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Niki Sharma: We stand on the side of survivors that are searching for the truth and searching for us to stand with them in pursuit of that truth. We will continue to do that every day.

I don’t even know how to answer the rest of that question. Maybe I’ll leave it at this. The history of this province and the work that we have to do on reconciliation is rooted in us coming to the table and sitting down with our First Nations partners to resolve the historic wrongs of the past and build a future for everybody in this province that lifts everybody up. We’re committed to that work and will continue to do so.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

[2:20 p.m.]

Dallas Brodie: It is obvious that this government won’t defend the private homes of British Columbians. It’s obvious from the very arguments that were made in the Cowichan case, where the best and strongest argument was pulled deliberately by the former then AG.

Neither will our courts defend the private properties of British Columbians. The disaster in Richmond was the inevitable result of nearly 50 years of court rulings that expanded Aboriginal title. Why would they stop now?

Just like our Premier, they believed that it was an unforgivable sin for our founders to assume control over these lands and create a fee simple title system. Just like our Premier, they planned to give away citizens’ money, land and power to tribal chiefs forever to pay for that sin.

My question for the Premier is this. Will he agree that Aboriginal title is an insult to our founders and an existential threat to B.C. and its economy which must be removed from Canada’s constitution?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’ve answered this question already.

Name Change Legislation

Kristina Loewen: This weekend delegates to the B.C. NDP convention voted to completely repeal this government’s changes to the Name Act.

When defending his own bill, the Minister of Energy said: “Allowing dangerous offenders to hide their identity through a legal name change is extremely troubling to victims and their family and can result in safety concerns for members of the public.” Yet nobody in the NDP caucus defended their bill.

Why didn’t the Premier stand up at the B.C. NDP convention and defend legislation that keeps British Columbians safe?

Hon. Mike Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

I’m happy to let the member know that the Premier has made it clear that if there are unintended consequences to the piece of legislation that the member is raising, we will address those. But one thing is absolutely clear. We will not allow those who commit criminal acts to escape their criminal record by changing their name. That’s plain and simple.

Though I must admit I do find it somewhat interesting, when the member talks about reactions at party conventions, about their own party convention.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: When the opposition leader used his speech to attack Elections B.C. and Dr. Bonnie Henry, no one spoke against that. When a guest speaker unfairly attacked a member of the press gallery, the delegates stood and applauded, and not one member on that side of the House stood up.

We’ve made it clear. We will deal with unintended consequences, but let’s be also clear….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop it, Members. Come to order. Come to order.

Hon. Mike Farnworth: Those who commit a criminal act are not going to be allowed to escape their record by changing their name.

Crime and Community
Safety in Abbotsford

Korky Neufeld: Last Wednesday, November 12, another Abbotsford shooting. Bullets sprayed a business’s window on King Road. The ninth shooting since September 1 in Abbotsford alone, and still no charges in any of these cases.

This past Sunday, yesterday, I attended the funeral of a well-respected businessman that our community is still mourning. Not a single NDP MLA showed up.

Can the Minister of Public Safety promise that no more Abbotsford families will have to mourn another senseless loss before Christmas, yes or no?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question.

I’d like to start out by expressing my sincerest condolences to Mr. Sahsi’s family, his workers and the entire community affected by the good works that he has done.

I had a chance to attend a vigil for Mr. Sahsi held in Surrey that also served as an opportunity for different levels of government to come together and speak about the work that is being done to combat extortion and to keep communities safe.

I’ve had the chance to engage with business owners and with families who are scared, which underscores our singular focus on disrupting these crimes, stopping these crimes and keeping members of the community safe. It’s this that is behind the work of the B.C. extortion task force, which represents one of the largest task forces ever assembled in B.C. history.

It includes all levels of the RCMP, the police of jurisdiction, including Abbotsford. It includes members from the CFSEU, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit. It includes members from the Canada Border Service Agency.

We are starting to see real results from their work, which is coordinated and comprehensive, including arrests, charges and removals from Canada, in accordance with laws. This government and my ministry will not rest until those perpetrating these crimes are held to account and our communities are safe.

Bruce Banman: Thank you very much to the Solicitor General.

You know, condolences. This family wrote a letter. They don’t need your condolences; they need your action. That’s what they need.

Abbotsford ranks the third-highest in Canada for extortion-related incidents and No. 1 per capita. Families and businesses are being targeted, threatened and traumatized. I’ve received the personal phone calls.

When will this Premier come to Abbotsford, look people in the eye and tell them when the shootings will stop?

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I do extend my condolences.

The fear of families, of business owners, of community members is real, which is why our government is singular in its focus and leading the way in Canada with our B.C. extortion task force and with the involvement of Canada Border Service Agency. Other jurisdictions, which are wrestling with these same crimes in Alberta and Ontario, are now looking at B.C. as a model. We will continue to….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Shhh, Members. Shhh, Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I’d appreciate the opportunity to answer.

We are leading the way in Canada in terms of the work of the B.C. extortion task force, in terms of the advocacy that our government has done, which has led to the Bishnoi group being designated a terrorist organization, and in terms of the leadership we have demonstrated on bail and sentencing reform. We will continue to do this work through all levels of government.

I must also take this opportunity to urge….

Interjection.

Hon. Nina Krieger: This is really important, sir.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

The minister will conclude, please.

Hon. Nina Krieger: I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the community that have come forward with information, which is directly supporting investigations in progress, and to encourage everybody with information, no matter how small, as soon as they have it to come forward to police. This is making a difference in the investigations and leading to arrests and removals.

We will not stop this work until people are safe.

Deportation of Persons
Related to Extortion Activities

Mandeep Dhaliwal: Yesterday I was at Darshan Singh Sahsi’s funeral. I am sick and tired of going to these kinds of funerals.

We have heard that the three extortion suspects are deported.

Why is this NDP government hiding the reason and their identities?

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. Nina Krieger: Thank you very much for the question, and thank you to the member for referencing the work of Canada Border Service Agency, which is an integral partner in….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let the minister answer, please.

Members, come to order.

Please continue.

Hon. Nina Krieger: The suggestion that we are withholding names or protecting criminals, frankly, is absurd and is stoking fear, which is not helping the situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger: CBSA is a federal agency, a key member of the task force, but Ottawa sets the rules and controls this information. The province does not have these names and cannot access or release federal immigration information.

I have heard from community members who have let me know how important it is to have information, such as names, that they are asking for. I have to maintain, though, the integrity of investigations under way, because we want….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. Nina Krieger: It’s imperative that the investigation is under way, that the integrity is protected, because we want it to lead to arrests, charges and convictions or removals from Canada if people are not in the country lawfully.

We will continue to work with our federal partners regarding anything related to immigration and CBSA.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member, let the Chair recognize you.

Safety of Lawyers and
Government Action on
Extortion Cases

Steve Kooner: This government is not leading. It’s being reactive, not proactive. This extortion crisis is out of control.

Lawyers are now being targeted. And if lawyers are being targeted, it’s important to know whether judges and witnesses are also being targeted.

Can this minister tell this House with absolute certainty that no judges and witnesses in B.C. have been targeted, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: These investigations are ongoing, and it’s important, in order to keep the integrity of the system, that those names and who is part of those investigations are not revealed here. It’s not going to further anybody’s interest to do so.

I want everybody to know that we are taking this very, very seriously. I take the opportunity to what the member raised this weekend, calling on the federal government, which we have advocated for specific changes, to consider extortion a terrorist charge.

I was surprised when he raised that, because had he looked at the Criminal Code or looked at what we have raised with the federal government, declaring the Bishnoi gang a terrorist organization…. If he would have looked through that, he would know that because of the work that we were doing…. Anything that’s committed on behalf of a terrorist group is a terrorist offence, including extortion.

We are doing the work to make sure that our Criminal Code and everything is there for us to go after these people.

Public Alert System for
Sexual Offenders

Reann Gasper: A woman in Abbotsford is now facing 13 sex offence charges, including luring and trafficking a minor. While she was at large, parents had no warning at all.

Mothers like me are terrified for our children’s safety in this province.

Will the minister commit today to issuing immediate public alerts when a child sex offender is wanted, yes or no?

Hon. Niki Sharma: I appreciate this very important issue that’s raised by this member. The police have certain criteria that they employ when they issue alerts to communities, and those alerts and those decisions made by the police are there to make sure that communities are safe.

Certainly, every time there’s an issue like this raised, we take it with the utmost seriousness, and I know that my colleague at Public Safety does as well, to make sure that communities have the information they need and that people are safe.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are doing a lot of work on this side of the House when it comes to going after sexual assault, going after offenders, whether it’s online or in communities, because we want to make sure that the people that are committing these offences are properly behind bars and that people are protected from further instances of their crime, and we’ll continue to do that work.

Crime in Communities and
Action on Community Safety

Peter Milobar: Well, the government keeps saying that they’re working to make communities safer, but the bottom line is that communities are not safer. In fact, they are more unsafe than ever before under this government’s watch.

If you look at things around the extortion cases, this government is very quick to try to take credit for things — action being taken, people being deported; yet as soon as they get asked for any detail on that, they instantly refer back to: “Well, that’s federal. That’s federal jurisdiction. We can’t actually talk about that.” So did they actually do anything, or did the CBSA, which is federal jurisdiction, actually do something for a change because this government’s inaction has led to ever-growing extortion issues in British Columbia?

We hear about sexual predators on the loose and deflection away — that they can’t really take extra steps.

In Kamloops, businesses are reporting a 26 percent surge in crime, while the Public Safety Minister says they’re doing everything they can do to try to keep communities safe. Businesses are losing millions of dollars a year of merchandise walking out the door, and they very clearly attribute it to the chaos being driven by a convergence of mental health, housing, the affordability crisis and catch and release, because property crimes are not taken seriously by this government.

They’re calling on the government for hands-on street management and real health care integration, because they have failed, to this point, in keeping our streets safe.

When will people, when will the business community in this province stop hearing that the government is working on something and start hearing about the government implementing and actually delivering results that, as the Premier said, people would actually be able to see and feel on the streets? Because they’re not safer. It is getting worse.

Hon. Niki Sharma: I’m happy to talk about results — the results that we’re showing for British Columbians on a very important issue that’s out there, and that’s public safety.

The ReVOII program, the repeat violent offender initiative, that’s circling around over 400 of the most violent offenders…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. Niki Sharma: …in the system and going from an individual who is responsible for hundreds of calls to the police a month to none. That’s a result in a community.

I want to talk a little bit, also, about the bail and sentencing reform that we put on the agenda through B.C.’s leadership that is dealing with the types of property crime that the member is raising, saying that if somebody is coming before this justice system over and over again, there needs to be respect for the law. Those individuals need to have accountability. So right in there, in the bill that’s before the House and the federal government, is B.C.’s work reflected in that Criminal Code change to make sure that those people that are causing the most impacts on communities are held and not causing those impacts.

We’ll keep at it until all communities feel safe in this province.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to table the Auditor General’s report Ministry of Agriculture and Food: Reliability of Premises Identification Information, and the Police Complaint Commissioner’s annual report, 2024-2025.

Petitions

Bruce Banman: I stand today to present a petition from very concerned members of my community, whereas B.C. Housing is planning a supportive housing project at 2270 Martens Street in Abbotsford, directly across from Abbotsford Traditional school grounds.

The housing project will be in proximity to vulnerable students, children aged 11 to 18, less than 60 metres from a field and playgrounds used by said children. The housing project contains a safe consumption room, increasing the risk to residents and vulnerable children in the area, and there has been a lack of transparency, public input, consideration of alternative locations, collaboration or disclosure of plans by B.C. Housing.

Lynne Block: I request leave.

The Speaker: For what are you asking leave, Member?

Lynne Block: I’d like to make an introduction that I made earlier.

Leave granted.

The Speaker: Please, proceed.

Introductions by Members

Lynne Block: In the introductions, I introduced the B.C. Youth Council, and I wasn’t sure if they were in the House. They are now.

I’d like you to stand and receive a warm welcome.

They were absolutely professional.

[2:40 p.m.]

Petitions

Jordan Kealy: I’d like to present a petition from my community of Fort St. John. They’ve gathered this petition to be brought forward.

This is a tough one, when it comes to…. They’re requesting to reduce the costs and increase access to innovative cancer drugs by lowering drug prices and guaranteeing access. Lighten the load for patients and families by reducing additional costs for cancer care, including lab fees, transportation, prosthetics, treatments, incontinence products, cooling caps and more.

This was brought to me from a member of my community, Justin Hupanda. He is a member of the Canadian Cancer Society. He also said that he really appreciated that Bill 30 got brought forward and that he was happy to see it proceed through the House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. Mike Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

Then in Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call committee stage on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act.

[Lorne Doerkson in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 25 — Housing and Municipal
Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We’ll call the House back to order, where we will be continuing debate on Bill 25, Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025.

Ward Stamer: I rise today on behalf of the B.C. Conservative caucus to speak firmly, clearly and unapologetically against Bill 25, the housing and municipal standards amendment act, 2025, a bill that pretends to be about solving the housing crisis but, in truth, centralizes power, weakens local democracy, exposes municipalities to fiscal instability and prioritizes provincial control over real community needs.

This legislation is yet another example of government that governs by decree rather than by collaboration, a government that demands compliance from local governments while ignoring the lived realities of the communities they claim to help. Bill 25 continues a disturbing pattern. Instead of working with municipalities, the government has chosen to legislate over them.

This bill expands the minister’s ability to dictate development standards, override municipal bylaws and impose one-size-fits-all requirements in Victoria. This Premier can say whatever slogan he wishes about cutting red tape or turbocharging housing, but what this bill actually does is strip communities of their decision-making processes and authority that allows them to respond to unique local conditions.

Local councils are elected by their neighbours. They understand the transportation networks, their water capacity, their fire response coverage and their school availability. But Victoria does not. Bill 25 tells local governments: “You can zone what we say, where we say and when we say. Your planning priorities no longer matter.” This is not partnership. This is not collaboration. This is central planning, and British Columbians know where that leads.

The most irresponsible aspect of this bill is its assumption that growth can be mandated without first ensuring infrastructure capacity exists. Transportation, sewer, stormwater, fire protection, policing — these systems do not magically expand because the province legislates more density.

[2:45 p.m.]

Municipalities have warned government repeatedly that they cannot absorb the population growth at the acceleration levels being imposed through Bills 44, 47 and now 25. Yet Bill 25 introduced new ministerial directives, new mandatory zoning alignments and a deeper reach into municipal land use authority without offering municipalities the fiscal tools to keep up.

The result? Cities will be forced to approve housing they cannot service. Developers will build faster than municipalities can upgrade pipes, roads and public safety. And residents existing in future will be left dealing with the fallout of overloaded infrastructure and declining service quality.

This is not planning; this is wishful thinking codified into law. This government loves to lecture municipalities about doing their part, but it quietly ignores the critical truth. You cannot build or maintain infrastructure with provincial press releases.

Bill 25 deepens municipal exposure to financial risk by forcing accelerated development approvals without providing new revenue streams to pay for that servicing; restricting municipalities’ ability to charge development cost charges, commonly known as DCCs, and community amenity contributions in ways that reflect the actual needs and costs of those projects; and also imposing provincial housing targets that may not align with long-term capital plans.

So what does this actually mean on the ground? It means property tax payers, the families that are struggling most with affordability, will pay for growth that they didn’t choose and that the province won’t fund.

The B.C. Conservatives believe in local fiscal authority and responsibility, not setting municipalities up for failure. One of the greatest fallacies in this government’s approach is the benefit that all communities are the same. A small rural municipality cannot absorb the same density expectations as a major urban centre. A mountain community with limited buildable land cannot conform to the same zoning formulas as a flat, suburban municipality. A community with wildfire risks, floodplains or a limited water supply cannot simply scale up when Victoria says so.

But Bill 25 ignores this. It assumes that every municipality must bend to a provincially crafted development model, regardless of geography, climate resilience, cultural context or community capacity. This is not thoughtful. This is not evidence-based. It is ideological, and it lacks forward thinking.

The government claims that Bill 25 will improve affordability. Let us be very clear. Nothing in this bill guarantees any affordable housing. It does not require developers to build affordable units. It does not address speculation on the concentration of land ownership. It does not provide protections for renters beyond market exposure. It does not reduce construction costs, taxes or regulatory fees.

What it does do is increase land value expectations, and it will also push home prices and rents higher, not lower. Every time the province imposes mandatory upzoning, the assessed value of land in those zones jumps. That increase is captured not by the renters, not by first-time buyers and certainly not by the municipalities but by speculators and large development firms. This government is unintentionally inflating land markets while claiming to fight them.

Our caucus, the B.C. Conservative Party, believes strongly in subsidiarity, the principle that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible. Again, allowing our municipalities to do the job that they were elected to.

Local accountability. Again, councils know their communities better than Victoria ever could or ever would.

And fiscal prudence. Again, communities cannot grow responsibly if they lack the resources to do so.

[2:50 p.m.]

Bill 25 violates these principles by overriding local autonomy and forcing municipalities in compliance instead of cooperation. A government that respects local decision-making does not need to centralize authority. A government confident in its policy does not need to impose mandates. A government that truly wants results works with partners, not over them.

Another troubling element of Bill 25 is the continued erosion of public consultation. This government has already reduced public hearings on rezonings through previous legislation. Bill 25 continues that trajectory by expanding regulatory authority and narrowing the circumstances under which ministries can actually invite public input.

British Columbians deserve a voice in shaping their neighbourhoods, not to be told that their input is an inconvenience slowing down the provincial agenda.

[The bells were rung.]

Deputy Speaker: Just one moment, Member.

Thank you. Continue, Kamloops–North Thompson.

Ward Stamer: British Columbians deserve a voice in shaping their neighbourhoods, not to be told that their input is an inconvenience slowing down the provincial agenda. Democracy is not a box to check. It is a process that protects fairness, transparency and trust. This government should not be choosing speed over democracy. It should be choosing good planning over political messaging.

Bill 25 also fails to address the real economic drivers of B.C.’s housing shortage — high interest rates, high construction costs, a shortage of skilled trades, long provincial permitting delays, provincial taxes and fees, immigration targets disconnected from housing capacity, speculative finalization of land. None of these are fixed by forcing municipalities to rezone more land.

We cannot legislate supply into existence when labour, materials and financing are unavailable. We cannot legislate affordability while ignoring the cost structure that drives prices. We certainly cannot legislate community support while excluding communities from the process.

A B.C. Conservative housing plan would have a much different approach. We would have a collaborative, not a coercive, relationship with municipalities; provincial investment in infrastructure long before imposing density targets would be provided; localized planning, recognizing that communities are not interchangeable.

We’d be restoring public consultation and transparency and trust in the process. We’d be reducing provincial fees, delays and the regulatory burdens that are troubling our entire sector. We’d be targeting affordability directly, not just assuming that the market will direct it. We will also, again, empower municipalities to shape responsible, sustainable growth. This is how building should work in this province, not from Victoria but with partnerships throughout British Columbia.

In conclusion, Bill 25 is not a housing strategy. It’s a power grab, a download of costs, again, and a substitution of local knowledge for provincial ideology. It weakens municipalities. It undermines public confidence. It does not guarantee affordability. It risks creating communities that grow faster than they can be safely serviced.

British Columbians need a real housing strategy, one built on partnership, transparency, sustainability and a respect for local democracy. For these reasons, the B.C. Conservative caucus cannot support Bill 25.

We stand for local autonomy, responsible growth and policies that actually improve housing affordability, not just policies that sound good in a press release.

Korky Neufeld: I rise today to speak to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. I want to start off by just quoting some stories from our local newspaper in Abbotsford.

[2:55 p.m.]

It says: “Housing Crisis in the Fraser Valley.”

“As the rising housing market continues to inflate and the wages stay stagnant, young people find it increasingly difficult to improve their living conditions.

“What income levels can afford a $1 million mortgage? How can someone save for a down payment on a $1 million house while struggling to pay such high rent? Is owning a home in the Fraser Valley an attainable goal?”

These are questions that many young people in British Columbia are asking as they plan for their future.

Just a story to start off with.

“Currently my fiancé and I are looking to move into a detached home that aligns with our goals as a couple. We purchased a condo in 2017, and since then it has soared in value, $245,000 to approximately $650,000. Despite this jump in overall equity to put towards a detached home, we’re finding that even most townhouses are beyond our reach.

“My fiancé is an industrial electrician, and I’m a full-time support worker. We both have very well-paying jobs, but despite our net income, the Fraser Valley is not affordable. Because of the high cost of housing, we are considering relocating to another province.

“It saddens me that we are being pushed out of our home province, where all of our friends and family are. We want to provide for our future family with the same childhood that we had: a nice backyard with a trampoline, possibly a blow-up pool for the summer and a garden where we can grow vegetables and fruits. Is this realistic for us if we remain in the Fraser Valley?”

The answer is no, they don’t think so.

Another story.

“When looking at a single person with a good career, we can see some barriers when it comes to owning a home or upgrading their existing one. Ashlee purchased a two-bedroom apartment in Abbotsford in 2010 for $125,000. She was only 21 years old, but the cost of the apartment was low, which also meant the down payment was an attainable sum to manage, about $7,000. She was also able to co-sign the mortgage loan with her father, a privilege that not all are afforded. She worked eight long years in retail to fulfil the mortgage payments, and she retained roommates to offset monthly costs.

“Twelve years later her residence is currently valued at around $420,000, an increase of just over 236 percent. Even with this shocking jump of $295,000 worth of equity, it’s still insufficient for her quest to upgrade to a detached house or even a townhouse in the Fraser Valley with a soon-to-be career as a social worker. The real estate market she was once able to buy into as a single person is now beyond her reach should she choose to sell her apartment.”

Bill 25. While I acknowledge its intent in legislation — namely, to increase housing supply and address our province’s affordability crisis — I must express some serious reservations about the scope, the approach and the potential unintended consequences of what this bill proposes. This bill is Bill 44 on steroids.

At its core, Bill 25 represents a significant shift in how land use planning and housing decisions will be made in British Columbia. The bill amends the Local Government Act, it amends the Vancouver Charter, and it amends the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, all under the stated goal of removing barriers to small-scale, multi-unit housing.

We all share the objective of seeing more houses being built, but the question before us is how that housing gets built. At what cost to local communities and the cost of additional infrastructure? Where is the democratic accountability? This bill is not a simple zoning update. It is a profound centralization of power, command and control — one that removes decision-making authority from locally elected councils and communities and transfers it directly to the provincial cabinet and the Minister of Housing.

Municipalities like Abbotsford are committed to working with the province. The key word is “with” — in partnership, in collaboration, in co-governance. This is what is posted on the Abbotsford city website:

“At its annual convention in Victoria, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM, got behind Abbotsford’s push to have the province of B.C. provide funding to cities to help cover rising infrastructure costs resulting from the increased residential density permitted by provincial housing legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

“The successful adoption of the infrastructure funding UBCM executive resolution is proof that this is an issue felt by municipalities across the province and that action needs to be taken to ensure that communities are ready to meet the rising demand for city services, since more people living close together means more people using the same water, the same sewer, the same roads and the same infrastructure.

“This resolution proposes that the province invest in a long-term, predictable, allocation-based funding program to support local government infrastructure servicing needs and stimulate growth of the provincial economy, as well as invest in provincial infrastructure investments and provincial permitting processes required to support housing-related population growth.

“We are encouraged by the support this resolution received and look forward to seeing this proposal move forward so municipalities are relieved of undue financial pressure as a consequence of the province’s mandated housing targets.”

Let me move on to the first part of the bill, the Local Government Act and the Vancouver Charter amendments. Under these changes, every municipality with more than 5,000 residents and located within an urban containment boundary will be required to adopt zoning bylaws by June 30, 2026, that permit small-scale multi-unit housing — such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes — on what were previously single-family lots.

At first glance, that sounds reasonable, but the bill goes further. It prevents — I want to repeat: it prevents — municipalities, locally elected governments, from setting their own standards for the size, the form or the density of these new housing units. This will completely alter existing neighbourhoods. The city of Abbotsford, like other municipalities, needs to alter their official community plan.

It gives cabinet, not local councils, the authority to determine what housing forms must be permitted, where and at what scale. In other words, local zoning autonomy, the very foundation of community planning, is being overridden by executive regulation. And should a municipality fail to comply with the prescribed deadline, the minister, with cabinet’s approval, is empowered to unilaterally enact or amend the city’s bylaw to bring it in line with provincial directives.

Well, let me ask the question: where is the working with? Where is the partnership? Where is the collaboration? Where is the co-governance? Instead we get command and control. This is an extraordinary shift in power, one that effectively sidelines local government and removes the voice of the people from decisions about the shape and density of their neighbourhoods.

I want to read another article that came out of Abbotsford. It’s called “Disagreements Over Provincial Housing Mandates.” “In 2023, the province issued mandatory housing targets for Abbotsford under the Housing Supply Act. In response, the city adopted bylaws allowing for increased residential density to meet the provincial requirements. However, the city has publicly stated that meeting these ambitious targets places significant financial strain on its infrastructure, such as water and roads.”

The city of Abbotsford desires strongly to work with this government. The question is: is this government willing to work with the city of Abbotsford in a meaningful way?

Equally concerning is the section of the bill dealing with off-street parking requirements. As of June 30, 2024, municipalities will no longer be able to require off-street parking. In other words, no garages, no driveways are required, no designated spaces for parking for small multi-unit homes that the province now mandates must be permitted as single-family lots.

This means that a developer can build a fourplex with zero parking spaces, even in communities where transit options are limited or nonexistent, where amenities are not in walking distance. For families, for seniors, for tradespeople, for people with mobility challenges, this is not a theoretical inconvenience. It’s a very real, very practical problem.

[3:05 p.m.]

The inevitable result will be congestion, spillover parking where it shouldn’t be, access issues for emergency vehicles and conflict in communities that are already struggling to manage rapid growth.

At the last UBCM in September, many city leaders argued that housing targets and related infrastructure needs are beyond their ability to control. This isn’t about opposing density. It’s actually about smart planning, which locally elected officials are best to decide. Density must be matched with infrastructure, with transit, with parking, with water and sewer capacity and with respect for the local context of each community.

This bill does not provide that balance. It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution from Victoria, regardless of whether it fits in a mountain town, a rural community or a wildfire interface zone. This approach risks creating exactly the kind of haphazard, ill-considered growth that communities have worked so hard to avoid.

Furthermore, the bill allows municipalities to rezone land to comply with provincial housing mandates, even when doing so contradicts their own official community plan. These plans are well-thought-out plans, years in the making. This clause in section 11 explicitly states that in 2027, local governments can ignore community-consulted OCPs and long-range planning for local needs and restrictions when rezoning to meet provincial requirements.

This is not only the province overriding a local community. It is now encouraging municipalities to disregard the very planning documents that were developed through years of public consultation with their own communities. What message does this send to residents who have invested their time and trust in community planning processes? These are the taxpayers that we in this House serve. These are the same taxpayers that locally elected mayors and councils serve.

British Columbians deserve a say in the future of their neighbourhoods. They deserve to know that when they participate in public hearings and when they engage in OCP reviews, their voices matter. This bill undermines that principle, and I would say shame on the government for this.

Turning briefly to short-term rental accommodations amendments, Bill 25 also makes several changes to extend regulatory powers to modern treaty First Nations.

Indigenous communities should have the tools to manage short-term rentals within their territories. However, this bill creates potential for overlapping jurisdictions and enforcement confusion, not clarity. It allows for coordination agreements that can apply different rules to different geographical areas, even with the same treaty lands. Without a clear framework and consistent enforcement standards, this could lead to uncertainty for both property owners and platforms alike.

Additionally, the bill tightens the review process for registration decisions, limiting the grounds for appeal and centralizing decision-making authority with the government provincial registrar. While administrative efficiency is important, due process and fairness must not be sacrificed in the name of speed.

I want to emphasize again that we all agree that British Columbia needs more housing. Our mayors and councils agree. They only want to work with this government. No one disputes that affordability and supply are pressing issues, but the way this government is going about it raises legitimate concerns about our local democracy, accountability and practicality.

I read this in the newspaper just the other day too. It says: “Numerous households across the Fraser Valley were waiting for affordable housing last spring, four years after this government promised to solve B.C.’s housing crisis.” How much longer will they need to wait?

Bill 25 assumes that Victoria knows best — similar to Bill 7, Bill 14 and Bill 15 — and that provincial bureaucrats, not local councils, are best equipped to decide how every neighbourhood should grow. It assumes that parking, it assumes that infrastructure, it assumes that livability concerns are secondary to rapid densification, and it assumes that a uniform template for small-scale housing can work equally well in Surrey, in Salmon Arm, in Smithers, in Abbotsford and even in Spuzzum.

[3:10 p.m.]

That assumption is absolutely wrong. We cannot plan our way out of a housing crisis by dismantling local governance, we cannot solve affordability by ignoring infrastructure realities, and we cannot build public trust by imposing top-down mandates that silence community voices.

A truly effective housing strategy requires partnership, collaboration, a co-governance relationship between the province and municipalities, First Nations and local residents. It requires flexibility, consultation and respect for local knowledge. Unfortunately, Bill 25 falls short on all three accounts.

While the goal of increasing housing supply is one that we all support, this legislation, as it stands today, concentrates far too much power in the hands of the provincial government. It undermines local autonomy and disregards the everyday realities of families and communities across British Columbia.

Let me try to be positive and offer some constructive solutions to Bill 25, a path forward rooted in partnership, practicality and respect.

One, table Bill 25 and replace compulsion with consultation. Engage genuinely with UBCM, local governments, the private sector and citizens.

Two, address real barriers — land, labour and infrastructure, not ideology. Without serviced land and skilled workforce, mandates are meaningless.

Three, adopt place-based policy. What works in Burnaby may not work in Abbotsford. Respect local context. Respect local geography. Respect local economies.

Four, build true fiscal partnerships. Provide predictable infrastructure funding. End the grant lottery, where communities compete for short-term photo ops. Municipalities need stable revenues to plan long-term growth.

Five, reform the regulatory framework. The B.C. chamber’s data shows projects’ costs can fall by 20 percent with open procurement and reduced red tape. We can apply those savings to actual housing supply.

Finally, six, restore local democracy. Reinstate public hearings, empower local councils and trust citizens. Democracy takes time, but trust takes longer. Without trust, no policy will ever succeed.

I urge this government to reconsider Bill 25 as it is — to work with local governments, not over them, which is not too much to ask for; and to pair density with infrastructure. A building without services is just a shed. Buildings need power, water and sewer are costs that municipalities will need to bear on their own. Reconsider to ensure that our collective efforts to solve the housing crisis strengthen, not weaken, the fabric of our communities.

This side of the House looks forward to committee stage to address further questions and debate on these serious issues and concerns. Bill 5 has far too many unintended consequences.

Deputy Speaker: Member, I believe you meant Bill 25.

Bryan Tepper: I rise with heavy heart. I do not enjoy telling the government, colleagues I respect, colleagues who are trying their very best and who truly mean well, that this bill, for all its good intentions, will hurt more than it helps. I wish I could say that yes, this is the bold stroke we need. But I cannot, because of the evidence.

The municipalities and the people I represent are telling me gently, firmly, repeatedly that this path leads to more conflict, more cost and less trust. So please forgive me for what I must say. I say it not to score points but because someone has to speak for the cities, towns and neighbourhoods that feel unheard.

[3:15 p.m.]

I know the pressure is immense. I know the housing numbers are brutal. I’m sure the government is working tirelessly and will continue to work, acting in good faith to solve a generational crisis. But giving the province the power to override local bylaws on parking, setbacks and density without appeal, without consultation, is a bridge too far.

The Community Charter was written to protect municipal autonomy. It says councils are natural persons, not branches of Victoria. They know their floodplains, their heritage streets, their transit realities.

When 25 municipalities sued over Bill 44, it wasn’t NIMBYism. It was a cry: “Work with us, not over us.” Bill 25 answers that cry with a regulatory hammer. That breaks something deeper than bylaws. It breaks partnership.

I know the intent — speed. I know the government believes deeply that faster approvals mean faster homes. The conviction is sincere. But removing public hearings for compliant rezonings, forcing five-year OCP cycles, without local rhythm? That’s not efficiency; that’s silencing. It’s seizing power from the local citizens and gathering it in Victoria. The irony of that is that the city of Victoria itself has its say neutered by this bill.

In Kitsilano, residents begged for tree protections. In Squamish, they asked for family-sized units. Under Bill 25, their microphone is unplugged because the provincial checklist says so.

Democracy is not a luxury we can suspend. When people feel steamrolled, they don’t just accept it. They resist, and that resistance will delay homes far more than any hearing ever could.

I know the government means well when it says that developers will pay. I know they genuinely believe that market forces will absorb the cost. But mandating density without funding infrastructure is fiscal cruelty. The UBCM says it’s $50,000 to $100,000 per small project in sewer, road and school upgrades. That’s hundreds of millions dumped on local taxpayers.

The city of Surrey itself has billions of infrastructure upgrades it needs. Where are we going to get that money? Developers can’t pay it all. DCCs are capped. Markets are soft.

Who carries the load? The senior in Maple Ridge, the young family in Kamloops, the small business in Cranbrook. We cannot ask them to pay for Victoria’s ambition — not without dedicated capital grants, not without shared responsibility.

I know the government truly wants to unlock supply everywhere. I know they sincerely believe uniform standards are fair. But not every lot is the same. A 3,000-square-foot parcel in East Vancouver is not the same as one in Crescent Beach, Fernie or Delta’s floodplain, yet Bill 25 says: “Same parking rules, same building area, same height.” It ignores sea level rise, wildfire corridors, heritage blocks, small-town scale. The result is gentrification, 15 to 25 percent value spikes, longtime residents priced out.

Density without design is not progress; it’s erasure. The people in my own riding have homes that currently have no street parking left. That’s with bylaws that require off-street parking. In certain neighbourhoods, I’ve had to park three to four blocks away just to walk to a home in that neighbourhood.

[3:20 p.m.]

Finally, the STR changes. I know the government means every word when they say that short-term rentals must serve long-term residents. I know they’re trying their hardest to protect housing stock.

I’ll support enforcement, but $10,000-a-day fines with no revenue sharing and abrupt bans in tourism towns? That’s not tough love; that’s economic shock. Whistler, Tofino, Kelowna — 20 to 30 percent of host income gone overnight.

We have several large events coming up in British Columbia. The World Cup. I believe the estimates are that we’re 170,000 hotel rooms short. Where are we going to find these spots for people that just want to come and enjoy and spend their money in our province?

Seasonal jobs are lost. Bed tax revenue vanishes. The enforcement? The municipalities are paying, and the province is collecting. This isn’t housing policy. It’s punishment by headline.

I do not stand here to obstruct. I stand here to beg for a better way, one that honours the government’s sincere effort and genuine care. Let’s restore partnership, provincial guidelines and local standards; fund what we mandate; tie targets to capital grants; and keep the public in the rooms where we have hearings for major change. We can honour place — flexibility for flood, fire and heritage. These are all different obstacles that different communities face.

Phase STRs fairly — 24 months, revenue sharing, tourism transitions and, perhaps I would add, for special events.

I wish I could applaud this bill. I wish I could say: “Finally, action.” But I cannot, because trust is the foundation of every home we build. Bill 25, as written, cracks that foundation. Let us go back, together, and write a law that builds homes, hope and harmony. British Columbia deserves both urgency and respect. I yield the floor with apology and with hope.

Harman Bhangu: I rise today to speak strongly and unapologetically against Bill 25. This bill may be wrapped in the language of housing reform and modernization, but British Columbians deserve the truth. Bill 25 is not a partnership with communities. It is not empowerment. Definitely, it is not responsible planning.

Bill 25 is a consolidating, heavy-handed takeover of local decision-making and a disruption of how communities grow, function and serve the people who live in them. As the jobs and economic development critic, I can say, without hesitation, that this bill will not make our economic corridor or transport corridors…. This bill will make our challenges much worse.

It will make our construction challenges worse as well. It will hurt businesses, tradesworkers, families and municipalities. It will not build a better British Columbia. It will build frustration in British Columbia, full of conflict and chaos. The core problem: density without infrastructure.

Let me begin with the most basic truth of this legislation. You cannot force massive density into communities that do not have the infrastructure to support the density. You cannot force four, six, eight or 12 units onto lots where one stood before and pretend the roads, the sewers, the stormwater systems, the schools, the parks, the policing and the transit all magically expand with it.

Infrastructure planning and partnership have to come first, and none of that is present in Bill 25. This government is pushing density and stripping municipalities of the ability to acquire basic, practical elements, like off-street parking.

[3:25 p.m.]

They are doing it in communities that do not have reliable transit. They are doing it in rural towns, agricultural zones, wildfire interface areas and suburban neighbourhoods where cars are not a luxury; they are a necessity. The government knows this. The people on the ground know this. But Bill 25 pretends the realities of daily life do not exist.

Now we have housing without parking. It’s not housing. It is a problem that you’re pushing down the road. One of the most glaring failures of this bill is its attempt to strip municipalities of the ability to require off-street parking for multi-unit developments. This is not a technical detail. This is not a minor line item. This is not a small adjustment. For many communities, this is the difference between livability and dysfunction.

When you remove parking requirements, you don’t remove cars. People will still own vehicles. Tradesworkers will still own trucks. Families will still try to get their kids to school and activities. Seniors will still need accessibility and safety. Workers will still need to commute to night shifts and jobs outside of the transit corridors.

All of those cars have to go somewhere. Under Bill 25, they will go onto the streets, onto boulevards, into business parking lots and in front of homes where residents have nowhere else to park.

You will create conflicts in neighbourhoods. You will push customers away from small businesses. You will burden cities with enforcement costs, signage, tickets, towing and angry residents. This is what happens when the government ignores the lived reality of the people they claim to be building housing for.

For example, the Port Coquitlam mayor, Brad West, called this out years ago. To understand why parking matters, we don’t need a theory. We need one real-world example. Port Coquitlam is not a rural town, not an isolated community. It’s a fast-growing, transit-connected city with an active downtown.

A little while back, their staff recommended reducing minimum parking requirements, using the exact same logic this government uses in Bill 25, the idea that there is too much parking and that lowering requirements will encourage people to abandon their vehicles.

What did Mayor Brad West say? “What staff proposed subscribes to the same theory of the province, in that there is an oversupply of parking” — then he delivered one of the most down-to-earth, commonsense lines any mayor has said on this issue — “which, I think, to believe requires you to ignore the evidence of your eyes.”

Ignore the evidence of your eyes. We’ve seen it with this government, ignoring on crime, health care, transportation, economy. Ignore what you see every day in your community. Ignore the realities of cars circling around neighbourhoods for space. Ignore residents frustrated by the spillover into their neighbourhoods. This is the same government logic being imposed on every community through Bill 25.

Brad West also warned that reducing parking requirements would hurt the cities financially, because they rely on parking in lieu of funds to pay for infrastructure. If Port Coquitlam, with transit, with density, with planning, cannot make ultra-low parking work, then how will small towns, rural communities or growing suburbs?

Bill 25 is not planning. Bill 25 is wishful thinking forced onto communities that cannot afford the consequences. Take, for example, West Vancouver. Mayor Sager saw this pattern early. Port Coquitlam was not the only community that has raised these concerns. Years back when the province began moving towards top-down housing and targets, West Vancouver mayor Mark Sager said something that should have stopped this government in its tracks.

[3:30 p.m.]

He said: “We believe municipalities should be responsible for zoning and planning.” It is a simple truth. Local planning belongs to local communities, in partnership with the provincial and federal help to make it happen.

Then he went further. “For the province to step in and zone all British Columbia from Victoria, we fundamentally think that is an error.” He wasn’t speaking about Bill 25. He was speaking about the same pattern of provincial overreach that this bill is now taking to an extreme.

When you have mayors from Port Coquitlam and West Vancouver, two very different communities facing different pressures, saying the province is overstepping and that this is not a coincidence, that this is a warning…. These comments are evidence of a longer and deeper problem. Municipalities have raised the alarm for years. This government simply does not listen.

Bill 25 is the latest example and the most extreme version yet, a Vancouver template that’s being forced on an entire province. One of the most troubling aspects of Bill 25 is that it applies a Vancouver-style planning philosophy to an entire province that looks nothing like Vancouver.

British Columbia is not one city. It is a patchwork of communities — urban, rural, agricultural, coastal, interior and northern — each with different needs, different pressures, different transportation realities and different infrastructure capacities.

What might work in Kitsilano does not work in Merritt. What might work in Mount Pleasant does not work in Salmon Arm. What might work downtown does not work in Aldergrove, Langley, Mission or Abbotsford or any growing suburb without full transport and transit service.

But this bill does not acknowledge those differences. It treats all of British Columbia as if it were two blocks on Main Street, Vancouver. That is not housing policy; that is an ideological uniformity at the expense of real communities.

This bill is also economically irresponsible. As the jobs and economic development critic, I have to highlight how economically reckless this bill truly is. Housing affects jobs. It affects labour mobility. It affects the ability for employers to hire. It affects construction timelines, supply chains and financial viability on these projects. Bill 25 undercuts all of that.

For example, one, projects will be harder to finance. Banks know that the units with no parking have less appeal and fewer buyers. That shrinks resale value and financial stability.

Two, small businesses will be harmed. Spillover parking hurts storefronts. We’re seeing it with the Broadway-Commercial line. It drives customers away. We’re seeing it with the Pattullo Bridge project. Business cannot absorb that burden.

Three, tradesworkers are ignored. Tradesworkers cannot haul tools on bicycles. They can’t take the SkyTrain to rural jobsites. They rely on trucks, equipment. Bill 25 does not even acknowledge them.

To get to the short-term rentals and First Nations authority, the confusion that lies ahead…. This bill also creates overlapping enforcement regimes for short-term rentals and coordination agreements with First Nations.

Coordination is important, but this bill is unclear on various things. Who enforces it? Who shares the data? Who issues the penalties? Who administers the system? Confusion is not reconciliation. Confusion is not partnership. It is simply another layer of uncertainty for tourism operators in rural economic corridors.

[3:35 p.m.]

And there is another detail the public should know. According to a contract publicly posted online, in June, the ministry had to hire MNP for $26,000. “Lead the short-term-rental registry financial risk and controls review.” If this government’s short-term-rental system was working, why did they need outside, high-priced consultants to tell them where the financial risks are? Why didn’t the ministry already know?

The contract confirms what municipalities already see on the ground. The STR system is sloppy, unstable, and now Bill 25 is trying to patch it again. UBCM has warned this government. They still won’t listen. This government still won’t listen.

On October 22, UBCM publicly stated that Bill 25 creates strain on local capacity and that many municipalities are still struggling to implement the last round of housing laws. They said this bill will divert staff resources away from approvals and create significant new infrastructure implications. They also said many of the problems could have been avoided if the province had done proper consultation instead of telling municipalities to “consult your lawyer.” Bill 25 ignores all of that

And there is more. According to the ministry’s own briefing note summary for July, which is publicly available online, the minister at the time signed an MOU with UBCM on local government financial resilience. You do not sign an MOU on financial resilience unless municipalities are already under strain.

Then just months later the government introduces Bill 25, adding more pressure, more mandates and more downloading onto those same local governments. So what was the point of signing that agreement? Bill 25 breaks the spirit of that on page 1.

The minister’s first reading claims do not match reality. In her first reading speech, the minister said that only a small number of communities would be affected. UBCM says the opposite. She said Bill 25 removes barriers. UBCM says it creates new burdens. She said the bill clarifies the rules. The municipalities were told, “Consult your lawyer” before.

Now this bill is here to clean up the mess the government created. She said these amendments improve operational efficiency, but a flurry of amendments is not efficiency. It’s repair work. The province is blaming municipalities for its own failures for years, and it continues.

Let’s be honest. This government has failed — failed on transit expansion, failed on infrastructure investment, failed on permitting, failed on supply chain issues, failed on trade labour shortages, failed on housing affordability, failed on community supports. I can go on and on.

And now, after all these failures, the government tries to blame municipalities through Bill 25. That is not leadership. It is deflection, which we see time and time again on that side of the aisle. It’s time for a blue-collar reality check.

I come from a working-class background. I know what families face. I know what businesses face. I know what trade workers face. If you build housing that people cannot practically live in because there is nowhere to park, nowhere to commute from, nowhere for trade trucks to go, nowhere for small businesses to keep customer access, you’re not building affordability. You’re building frustration, and the people who will suffer the most are the people this government claims to be helping.

[3:40 p.m.]

In conclusion, I cannot and will not support Bill 25. This bill is not about homes. It is about power, plain and simple. It ignores local acknowledgement. It ignores municipal warnings. It ignores infrastructure reality. It ignores transportation reality. It ignores economic reality.

It ignores the mayors and communities who have already told the province that we’re heading down the wrong direction. Brad West said that believing there is too much parking requires you to ignore the evidence of your eyes. Mark Sager said that zoning of all British Columbia from Victoria is an error, and he is not wrong.

Those were warning signs issued long before Bill 25, warnings this government refused to listen to. And today, through Bill 25, the government is doubling down on the same mistake. For all of these reasons and economic reasons, for planning reasons, for practical reasons and for the well-being of communities across British Columbia, I cannot and will not support this bill.

Trevor Halford: I want to thank the members, especially on this side of the House, that have spoken so passionately in regards to our opposition on Bill 25.

You know, we all come to this House with different backgrounds, different skill sets, different reflections and different paths on how we got here. It amazes me because we have, on both sides of the House, a number of people that have come here with a municipal background. Whether it’s a school district, a regional district, parks; whether it’s serving as mayor of the second, soon to be first, largest city in British Columbia — we all, on each side of the House, have those backgrounds.

Now, it perplexes me why, and on Bill 25, over the last number of years, the NDP, this government, has waged a war on the jurisdiction of those duly elected municipal governments, bill by bill. Bill 44, which is very similar to what we’re talking about here.

We have issues that are going before council in Surrey in 15 minutes on housing that we can’t have public debate on. No public debate on housing projects that the government is putting into communities. If there’s support or opposition or if there are questions….

The government, the province of B.C., the NDP government has told the cities, whether it’s the city of Prince George, the city of Surrey, the city of Victoria, the city of White Rock, the city of Merritt — it doesn’t matter, every single city in this province: “You do not and, more importantly, the constituents in your municipalities do not have a right to have their voices heard at public hearings.” And that is completely wrong. Absolutely wrong.

This bill fits that mould.

I represent areas of South Surrey where we have a development that happened just by the truck crossing on 0 and 176. Beautiful homes have been growing in there for ten to 15 years at Douglas crossing. A couple of thousand families are in there. There is not one public bus that goes through there. There’s no transit, no public transit.

In fact, if you want to use public transit, you’ve got to walk all the way down 8th Avenue, which I would never let any of my kids walk down. You’ve got to cross Highway 99, which you…. Then you’ve got to cross King George Highway. Then you’ve got to walk along King George Highway, and you’ve got to wait for a bus that comes four times a day. That is your access to public transit under this government in an area that services 10,000 to 15,000 people. I don’t think that’s adequate.

[3:45 p.m.]

When the colleague previous and the colleague previous before that, and probably my next colleague is going to speak about the fact about eliminating parking and mandating that with the municipalities…. Where is the vision? Where is the reality?

What are you going to tell the single mom that’s living now in a basement, that’s going to pick her kids up from school, get them to dance, get the other one to hockey, then get to her job, and then do it all over again. There’s no parking required there. You’re on your own. Maybe you can Uber it.

When we talk about things that this government wants to do, I would challenge the Housing Minister and I would challenge any MLA in Surrey, for that matter, to come over into White Rock and tell me, whether it’s on Oxford Street, Stevens Street, Stayte Road, Buena Vista, how you are going to do this. I’ll give an answer for you. You can’t. Then why are you doing it? You can’t. There’s not even room right now for these people to take their garbage cans out.

We have massive infrastructure upgrades that need to happen, whether it’s Crescent Beach, whether it’s Ocean Park, whether it’s Oxford Hill, whether it’s Centennial Arena, whether it’s King George Highway. I keep going down the list, and I can go into other ridings as well. I can list those off, and they’re not done. If you talk to the city of Surrey, they’re saying that in order for us to do those infrastructure upgrades, they’re over $800 million. Who’s paying that bill? Who’s footing that bill?

Again, this is done in strong opposition to what we are hearing from our municipal leaders, our elected municipal leaders.

Now, I know that the Premier has probably hired a couple of high school or university friends to help advise him in the Premier’s office when it comes to housing or whatever, or past mayors that didn’t get elected or that share those philosophical socialist beliefs on how we do housing in British Columbia. But it doesn’t work in all corners of this province.

Fundamentally, it does not work. What works in White Rock may not work in Chetwynd. It probably won’t. Again, we go through these things, and these are all things that I’ve given this speech on before, on Bill 44. I’ve given it on Bill 47. It’s the same stuff. It’s the same opposition. But this government believes in this one-size-fits-all model, and it’s baffling to me. Not only is it incredibly lazy, but it’s incredibly dangerous.

You look at this piece of legislation here, and I can explain why it will not work. I can also explain how offensive it is to the local leaders. Where the confusion is, is that they have to go out there and do this work — and the amount of staff time it takes up, and things like that.

You look at cities, whether it’s White Rock or smaller cities than that…. One staff member was telling me that they have to spend the majority of their time going back and forth with the province at a bureaucratic level explaining why they can’t meet these targets, why this does not work for them. That is how they’re spending their days, not on their permitting, not on the other stuff that they’re meant to be doing, right? They’re trying to explain to the province how their mandates and their legislation are conflicting with the reality that’s within their jurisdiction.

I know that other members on the other side of the House are hearing the same thing. In our caucus, we have former councillors, former city managers and former mayors, and the government side does as well.

[3:50 p.m.]

I know what I’m hearing on this side on why this does not work. I’m very curious to hear, on the other side, how they justify this. The previous speaker was right. Not every city is Vancouver. It’s not. And I think part of the challenge we have here is that when the government looks at things, I don’t know if they’re just throwing darts at a board on a map of British Columbia. That’s honestly how it feels.

Right now you have, I guarantee you, probably a couple hundred people at Surrey city hall that are wanting to speak on something, and they can’t. That isn’t mandated by the mayor of Surrey or anybody that sits on Surrey city council. That was mandated by this NDP government. They silenced those people today. Nobody else did. And that’s wrong. It’s the same thing with this bill.

I want to thank you for the time today. Obviously, I stand in solid opposition, but I would say this in my concluding remarks. This idea that everything that goes on in here and every legislation that is put forward here must work in every corner of this province is not reality. It’s not.

I can tell you, whether it’s in rural British Columbia or in urban, that there seems to be a massive disconnect in reality of what we’re facing, whether it’s in Surrey or White Rock or whether it’s in Dawson Creek or Prince George. Nobody is happy with what we’re getting from this government, especially when it comes to legislation that continues to erode the powers and structures of municipalities.

We all end up paying for it because we’re not doing the work ahead of time. We’re not doing the infrastructure upgrades. We’re not looking at the expansions. I can tell you that in my riding, we don’t have any new schools in the last six or seven years. We don’t.

The upgrade…. We’re getting a new ICU at Peace Arch Hospital, which is $40 million. I want to thank the province for that. I want to thank them for the $3 million they’re contributing, but I really want to thank the Peace Arch Hospital Foundation, who’s contributing the other $37 million. That’s what the province is putting in. They’re putting in less than 10 percent when it comes to the new ICU at Peace Arch Hospital.

Again, they have to be able to work with municipalities, and this hammer approach is failing every single time, and this is no different.

Lynne Block: My fellow MLAs, to preface, we do stand united in the conviction that the housing crisis is an emergency demanding urgent and effective action.

The Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, introduced by this government, is intended to rapidly increase density and streamline development across the province. However, in pursuit of this necessary goal, this legislation introduces a fundamental rebalancing of power between the province and our local municipalities.

The sources clearly detail that these amendments demonstrate a significant expansion of provincial authority, which we must critically examine as overreach. This centralization raises pertinent questions about procedural fairness, local responsiveness and the ability of communities to shape their own futures.

We must view these legislative changes, which shift control over zoning, density, parking and administrative review from elected local councils to the provincial government and the Lieutenant Governor in Council, albeit a shift to a central command centre, taking over the operational controls of various local entities.

[3:55 p.m.]

The centralization of control established by this Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act is likened to a central command centre taking over the operational controls of various local ships. Now, in this scenario, our local captains — our mayors and councils, our municipal leaders — are left responsible for the vessel’s journey. This means they still bear the political and administrative responsibility for managing community services, budgeting and mitigating the consequences of rapid change, such as infrastructure strain and congestion.

However, the captains are rendered powerless to steer it according to local navigational hazards or conditions. This powerlessness stems from the provincial government’s assumption of critical local powers, including mandatory destination setting.

The province dictates that local governments must permit specific uses and densities in formerly restricted zones by June 30, 2026, overriding the municipality’s traditional control over zoning bylaws. Local leaders lose the ability to tailor density changes to existing neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity or community preference.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council gains authority to make regulations dictating the siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form or density of housing units. This removes control over granular design details used to ensure new development harmonizes with existing neighbourhoods.

The Lieutenant Governor can set an upper limit on the off-street parking spaces that a municipality may require. This removes the captain’s power to assess and manage local parking needs, potentially exacerbating street congestion and parking shortages.

If a local council fails to comply with these mandates, the minister, with the Lieutenant Governor in Council’s approval, can make an order that enacts or amends the local bylaw directly, completely bypassing the local democratic process and negating local accountability. In essence, the provincial government has taken the helm of the ship, leaving the local leaders with the bill for the fuel and the responsibility for the crew, but no ability to adjust course to avoid locally specific obstacles.

The cornerstone of local governance is the power to manage land use through zoning bylaws. This act aggressively removes this power via mandatory density mandates. The legislation dictates that local governments and the council of Vancouver must permit specific uses and densities in zones previously restricted primarily to detached single-family dwellings, known as restricted zones. By June 30, 2026, zoning bylaws must be amended to permit uses such as duplexes and single-family dwellings with one or two additional housing units. This represents an overreach, because it overrides the local governments’ traditional power to control land use.

So what’s perhaps the possible negative result of this? It is the inability of municipalities to tailor density changes to existing neighbourhood character, infrastructure capacity or community preference, as they are compelled to comply with minimum density standards set by the province. But one size does not fit all.

This standardization doesn’t stop at density. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is granted broad regulation-making authority to dictate specific elements of the newly required housing units, including “the siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form or density of housing units.” Local governments must then exercise their zoning powers in accordance with those provincial regulations.

[4:00 p.m.]

The last couple of weeks I spent chit-chatting with my two local mayors and councillors and citizens in my riding, and they are aghast by the overreach of this government. They wanted me to convey very strongly that this is not acceptable and they are totally against it. So I’m just making it very clear, representing my riding.

This provincial control removes local ability to manage the granular details of construction and design often used to ensure new development harmonizes with existing neighbourhoods. The outcome risks a loss of local distinctiveness and standardized, potentially unsuitable developments across diverse geographic and community settings.

One of the examples cited was that our municipalities know areas where possible landslides could happen in the future and where some have already. If, indeed, they’re overridden, then who is going to be responsible for any casualties, any loss of lives, any loss of property? It would have to be the municipalities.

The most profound constitutional risk involves the minister’s power to directly intervene and legislate local rules. If a local government fails to adopt a zoning bylaw or parking bylaw that complies with the new provincial mandates within the required timeframe, the minister may issue notice. If compliance remains absent, the minister may, with prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make an order that enacts or amends the local bylaw directly.

Forget about OCPs. Forget about many, many times when all the constituents are together and have wonderful collaboration and cooperation in what they envision in their municipality. This allows a provincial minister to completely bypass the local democratic process and legislate local rules. This concentrates key legislative functions within the administrative reach of the provincial executive, resulting in the negation of local democratic accountability for key planning decisions.

This centralized control extends to traffic and infrastructure planning. We only have two bridges. We have people coming through the North Shore along the highway. People now commute from Lions Bay, Squamish. They come from Bowen Island. They commute. Then we have commuters coming from the other way, all the way across the Second Narrows Bridge.

I can assure you, when it’s time for the change at Seaspan, for people coming in and people going out, we are clogged. From two o’clock onwards, you have to make sure that you are either going at least an hour and a half early to an appointment downtown or across the Second Narrows Bridge, or you may lose out. You never know what the traffic is like.

Heaven forbid if there’s an emergency or traffic accident, because everything is plugged. You cannot move. I remember a few months ago there was a traffic accident, and there was another issue on the other bridge. Traffic didn’t move for four hours. One mother was trying to pick up her son from daycare, and she was stuck for three hours in the same spot because nothing moved. There was no place to go.

All of this increased density…. There’s still no way to get off the North Shore. There is no bridge planned, not even talking about it, not even a tunnel.

This centralized control extends to traffic and infrastructure planning. The act immediately restricts municipalities and Vancouver council from requiring off-street parking or loading spaces for specific newly required residential housing units. The Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to make regulations setting an upper limit on the number of off-street parking or loading spaces that local governments may require for other residential uses permitted under the act.

What’s the negative result? Increased infrastructure strain. This is an overreach because it removes the municipality’s power to assess local parking needs. By restricting the ability to demand adequate off-street parking, the law risks exacerbating street congestion and parking shortages in rapidly densifying areas.

[4:05 p.m.]

For regions like the North Shore, where existing infrastructure is already inadequate, adding more residents with no parallel infrastructure built ignores the facts and risks more gridlock, negatively impacting emergency measures and commuters.

When such extraordinary authority is centralized, including the power to impose bylaws via order and to regulate design specifications, the system becomes structurally vulnerable to unintended negative outcomes if that power is exercised without complete impartiality.

The risk is clear. When power is centralized and local checks are eliminated, the system becomes vulnerable to personal motive and bias. What are three risks stemming from potential bias or potential motive?

Politically motivated override and selective enforcement. For example, the minister’s power to enact or amend bylaws and the authority to grant extensions only in “extraordinary circumstances” carries the risk of being applied unevenly.

If the minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council is influenced by personal relationships or partisan leverage, a non-compliant municipality that is politically aligned might receive extensive extensions, while an opposition-led municipality might face immediate and aggressive imposition of provincially dictated bylaws, circumventing local public consultation entirely. The process then becomes politicized, replacing sound governance with partisan motivation. I’m not saying that would happen. I hope that would not happen, but it could.

Then, because the Lieutenant Governor in Council holds the authority to dictate housing siting, size, dimensions, location, type, form or density, there is a potential risk that regulations might, inadvertently or intentionally, favour specific, large-scale construction methodologies or even suppliers. This standardizes housing design, potentially creating a non-competitive advantage for larger firms that specialize in mandated specifications, thereby negatively impacting smaller local builders.

The Lieutenant Governor in Council authority to set an upper limit on parking requirements could be driven by an ideology that strongly opposes private vehicle use or that everybody has to have an EV. Where are all the cords? Where are all the plug-ins? Where’s all the electricity?

If this results in parking caps that are drastically inadequate for communities lacking robust public transit — that’s an issue — dense neighbourhoods could experience acute congestion and service failure. The local leaders are legally prohibited from adjusting the rules to local reality, demonstrating how political motive can lead to system malfunction.

The legislative risks are not limited to planning statutes. They extend to administrative review under the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act. The act does take a positive step — it does — toward mitigating bias by preventing the same person from making a registration decision and then reviewing that decision. That’s a positive. However, it severely limits the grounds for review. That is a negation.

A review may now only be based on specified grounds, primarily what they call “new evidence.” This evidence must be substantial and material, and it must either not have existed when the decision was made or must be evidence that could not, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, have been discovered at that time.

[4:10 p.m.]

This narrow restriction focuses the appeal process strictly on the discovery of new facts, rather than challenging a potential error in the interpretation or application of existing facts. If a regulator is motivated to clear cases rapidly or enforce rules aggressively, perhaps to meet political performance targets, this narrow review criterion shields potentially flawed or biased adverse decisions from true scrutiny.

These legislative changes — the seizure of zoning, the control over parking, the ministerial veto and the curtailment of due process — represent a structural alteration to the balance of governmental authority.

The danger of power concentrated in a central command, even when pursuing a noble goal, is articulated in one of my favourite books in high school. I’m sure most of you read it when you were in high school, George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Animal Farm, still relevant today, depicts leaders who centralize all authority and manipulate rules to maintain control, eventually stripping the other animals of their autonomy. This parallels the act’s overreach. Just as the leaders take over all planning for the farm, the provincial government uses the act to take control over local zoning, design and parking requirements away from local councils and place it under the authority of the minister and the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The act dictates that local governments must permit specific uses and densities by a fixed date, replacing local democratic debate with a central mandate. When the minister can simply enact or amend a local bylaw via order, the local council becomes irrelevant, mirroring the loss of accountability felt by the working animals in Animal Farm. The book serves as a powerful analogy for what happens when a system eliminates local checks and transparency, leaving it vulnerable to the motives of those holding the reins of the central command centre.

Our concern is not the goal of providing housing but the means chosen to achieve it. By placing unprecedented authority in the central command, we risk creating a rigid system where local circumstances, diverse community needs and procedural fairness are sacrificed for the sake of top-down consistency. We must ensure that the necessary pursuit of housing affordability does not fundamentally diminish the responsiveness and autonomy of local governments.

We must keep in mind this cautionary tale in the novel Animal Farm. This book serves as an analogy for what happens when the noble goal, housing affordability, is pursued through methods that fundamentally corrupt the process of governance by eliminating transparency and local checks, leaving the system vulnerable to the motives of those holding the reins of the “central command centre.”

Democratic processes reflected in our local policies of mayors and councillors must be protected. I advocate today on behalf of the constituents in my riding, the mayors and the councils. This is why I am strongly opposed to this bill.

Jordan Kealy: I rise today on behalf of the people of Peace River North and, frankly, on behalf of every rural, northern and interior community in this province. I cannot support this bill. It’s not just incompetence anymore. It’s not even ideology. It’s indifference — a complete, total indifference to people who are affected by this government’s decisions.

[4:15 p.m.]

Bill 25 makes that painfully clear. This government knows its housing policies are failing. They know communities are struggling. They know municipalities are drowning in unfunded mandates, broken promises, impossible timelines. Yet they keep doubling down.

Over these past months, in conversations at UBCM; in calls from mayors; in meetings with councillors; and in countless conversations at coffee shops, small businesses, community halls and gas stations back home, the message has been consistent. We want to build housing, we want to grow, but we are not going to support bills that bulldoze local voices and impose density without any regard for infrastructure, engineering or safety.

I actually think about my colleague when she mentions a book by George Orwell. She mentioned Animal Farm. I was thinking more along the lines of 1984, but I’ll continue.

Peace River North is not Vancouver. It’s not Burnaby. It’s not Victoria. We are a region with space, land, industry, long winters, frost heaves, septic systems, lagoons, deep water lines, heavy trucks and communities spread across large distances. Our needs are different. Our infrastructure is different. Our realities are different. This government continues to pretend that British Columbia is one single urban neighbourhood instead of a vast, diverse province.

Bill 25 forces density where it may not be safe. It eliminates local parking requirements in communities that depend on vehicles for survival. It gives the minister sweeping powers to rewrite zoning bylaws, erasing council decisions, public hearings and community input with a single signature. At no point does the bill require the province to prove that the infrastructure beneath these neighbourhoods can handle what is being forced onto them.

At UBCM, local governments were crystal clear. “We are not opposed to housing, but the province must partner with us, not override us.” They asked for collaboration. They asked for transparency. They asked for engineering-backed planning. They asked to have a voice. This bill hands them the opposite: centralized control, blanket mandates and a planning model built for Vancouver applied equally to the North, the Interior and rural regions where it flat out does not fit.

Let me speak plainly here. The democratic consequences of this bill are severe. Removing public hearings. Removing local zoning decisions. Allowing the minister to rewrite bylaws unilaterally. This is not how you build trust. This is not how you build communities. This is not how you solve housing. This is how you divide the province and silence the people who actually live in these neighbourhoods.

Centralizing power has never solved regional inequality. It didn’t work in health care when the local boards were dissolved and replaced by regional authorities. It hasn’t worked in education. And it will not work in municipal governments.

When you remove local control, you don’t create efficiency. You create bureaucracy. You create administrative expansion. You create new enforcement units, compliance divisions, provincial managers and reporting structures that cost taxpayers more money and deliver less accountability and transparency.

Municipalities will be forced to hire additional staff to meet the provincial mandates that this bill imposes on them. This bill proves that the NDP doesn’t trust anyone — not the councils, not the citizens, not the experts. Instead of admitting that their past housing legislation didn’t work, they simply erased local decision-making entirely.

Zoning? Overwritten. Parking mandates? Dictated. Density forced? Everywhere. OCPs? Silenced. Heritage protections? Ignored.

[4:20 p.m.]

This is a government that doesn’t just refuse to listen; it refuses to acknowledge that anyone else might have anything worth saying.

This bill is built on a lie that the province can fix housing by controlling municipalities. They couldn’t fix permitting. They couldn’t fix affordability. They couldn’t fix supply. They couldn’t fix homelessness. They couldn’t fix short-term rentals without chaos. So instead of facing the truth, they grab power and bulldoze process.

When a government stops caring about local democracy, that is not confidence. That is not vision. That is not strength. It is a government admitting: “We don’t know how to solve this, so we’ll simply take over everything.” This government has stopped caring about outcomes. They only care about control.

They don’t care if municipalities can’t afford infrastructure. They don’t care if neighbourhoods aren’t ready. They don’t care if British Columbians were genuinely consulted. They don’t care if communities lose their identity. They don’t care if housing actually gets built. They care about the headlines. They care about announcements. They care about forcing compliance so they can pretend they are fixing housing.

I cannot support a bill that raises taxes, expands bureaucracy, ignores engineering realities and strips local voices from the planning process. There is a better path forward. There always was.

If this government truly cares about housing, then it must work with local governments, not against them. It must require engineering assessments before density is imposed. It must restore municipal decision-making. It must listen to UBCM resolutions and the concerns raised by mayors and councillors from across the entire province. It must recognize the fundamental difference between urban and rural regions. It must respect Indigenous, rural and northern perspectives equally. And it must build a planning framework that reflects the size, complexity and diversity of British Columbia, not just the needs of one region.

This bill needs to go back to the table. It needs to go back to the communities it impacts. It needs to go back to the municipal leaders who see the consequences firsthand. It needs to go back to the engineers who understand capacity. It needs to go back to UBCM, to rural caucuses, to northern perspectives, to Indigenous governments, to planners, to local councillors and to everyday British Columbians who are being treated as an afterthought in their own neighbourhoods.

We need a model that builds responsibility, sustainability and locally. We need a model that respects democracy and governance, and we need a government willing to listen, not dictate.

Peace River North cannot support Bill 25. Not because we are opposing housing but because we value responsible growth, not because we resist change but because we demand planning that keeps our communities safe, not because we want to fight with the province but because we believe in the people who live in our region and deserve a voice in shaping its future.

This bill in its current form is not the solution. But with real consultation, real engineering, real respect for the local governments and real collaboration between urban and rural British Columbia, we can build something better. British Columbians don’t need another top-down decree from a government that has stopped caring whether their policies work. They need a government that cares enough to listen, collaborate, respect communities and build real solutions, not bulldoze them.

[Mable Elmore in the chair.]

Bill 25 is a confession of failure, not a path forward, and we will not support it. Anyone who believes in local democracy, responsible planning and regional respect should not support this bill in its current form.

[4:25 p.m.]

Jody Toor: I rise today to speak on the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act, 2025. I want to begin by saying something very clearly. British Columbia is in a housing crisis. Everybody knows it. Families know it. Young people know it. Seniors know it. It doesn’t matter if you live in Langley, Prince George, Victoria, Surrey, Nanaimo or Cranbrook. People are struggling.

Just because we have a crisis does not mean we should accept bad solutions, and the bill before us today is a bad solution. It does not respect communities. It does not support local governments. It does not trust British Columbians to plan their own neighbourhoods. It grabs power, centralizes authority and pushes aside the very people the government claims to be helping. This bill says loudly, proudly and arrogantly that the NDP government knows best.

Well, British Columbians do not agree. Conservatives do not agree. I do not agree, and that is why I stand here today. A centralized, heavy-handed approach, this bill represents one of the most sweeping takeovers of municipal authorities in British Columbia’s history. The minister gains broad new powers to rewrite local zoning, override council decisions, impose new housing rules, demand reports and audits, issue deadlines, punish municipalities and even step in directly when a city can’t move fast enough for this government.

This is not partnership. This is not collaboration. This is not respect. This is a top-down government at its worst. It sends a message to every local council, every mayor and every resident who participates in civic life: “Your voice doesn’t matter. Your community doesn’t matter. Only the minister matters.” This is not how democracy works in this province. This is not what British Columbians want. And this is not how Conservatives, being the official opposition, believe government should behave — forced upzoning without a local say, a recipe for chaos.

A big part of this bill forces municipalities to allow multi-unit housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and more on what the bill calls restricted zones — basically, single-family neighbourhoods. Now, Conservatives are not against density. We’re not against redevelopment. We’re not against building more homes. We are against doing it without a plan, without local input, without infrastructure and without any understanding of the realities on the ground.

This government wants all municipalities — whether they are big or small, urban or rural — to rush through zoning changes by June 30, 2026. That’s one year and a few months from now. For some communities, that is manageable. For others, it is impossible, but the government doesn’t care.

They want municipalities to follow their template on their timelines, regardless of whether the water system can support more demand. The sewer system is at capacity; the roads are already congested, the schools are overflowing, and the local hospitals are already understaffed. The bus system barely runs, just recently mentioned by my colleague from Surrey–White Rock. The fire department is short resources. The police departments in some regions are very short resources already throughout the province.

This bill feels like it was written by people who have never stepped foot outside of Vancouver. The government seems to think that what works in Yaletown will work the same in Langley, Kelowna, Clearwater or Maple Ridge. British Columbia is diverse. Communities are unique. Needs are different. This government ignores all of that.

Removing parking requirements is out of touch with real life. One part of this bill that has people shaking their heads is a removal of off-street parking requirements for many homes. Again, maybe this works in a neighbourhood with SkyTrain running every few minutes, but that is not for most of British Columbia. In many communities, buses run once an hour, if at all. Routes don’t connect well. Service ends early in the evening. There are no rapid transit lines. People work far from home. Seniors need vehicles to get to their appointments.

[4:30 p.m.]

Removing parking requirements without first improving transit is backwards. This won’t reduce car use. It will simply move cars onto crowded streets. It will create parking wars between neighbours. It will frustrate residents who already feel ignored. It will make streets less safe.

Local governments tried to explain this. Residents tried to explain this. Experts tried to explain this. But this government didn’t listen. Why? Because they believe the NDP government knows best.

More red tape, not less. The government says this bill cuts red tape. I’m not sure what bill they read, because the one in front of us creates new mandatory reports, new audits, new deadlines, new requirements, new penalties, new zoning orders and new provincial regulations still to come. This isn’t cutting the red tape. This is moving red tape from the city hall to the NDP government.

Developers need clarity. Municipalities need stability. Communities need transparency. But this bill creates uncertainty, confusion, shifting rules and the fear of provincial override. When builders can’t predict the rules, they slow down construction. When construction slows down, housing prices stay high.

This bill is a barrier dressed up as a solution. This bill ignores infrastructure completely. The most worrying part of the bill is that it doesn’t address…. You can’t add thousands of new homes to a neighbourhood without investing in water systems, sewer systems, schools, hospitals, roads, fire departments, police departments, paramedics, transit. You cannot grow a community if the basic services can’t keep up. But this bill doesn’t include a single serious infrastructure commitment, not one. Instead, it demands municipalities to do more while giving them no resources to do it.

Who will pay for the sewerage upgrades? Who will pay for the new water mains? Who will pay for the new schools and classrooms? Who will pay for more fire and police resources? Who will pay for more doctors and nurses? Right now that burden falls on local governments and, therefore, on property tax payers. This bill is not just heavy-handed; it’s expensive for local families who are already struggling.

What Conservative leadership looks like. Conservatives believe there is a better way. We believe in partnership, not punishment. Work with municipalities instead of overruling them. We believe in fixing the real bottlenecks — simplifying permitting, cut duplicate processes, modernize approval systems. We believe in building infrastructure first because responsible growth needs solid foundations.

We believe in supporting builders and the skilled trades. Give them a stable environment so homes can actually get built. We believe in respecting communities, because every neighbourhood is unique. We believe affordability is bigger than housing alone. If taxes are high, if groceries are expensive, if gas prices are too high, if insurance is unaffordable, then housing will never become truly affordable.

We need a broader plan that addresses cost of living, not another top-down zoning mandate. What British Columbians are telling us across the province…. People are saying the same. “We want more homes, but we want it done properly. We want a voice in what happens to our neighbourhoods. We want infrastructure to keep up. We don’t want the NDP government dictating everything.”

People want balance. Bill 25 gives them orders. People want partnership. This bill gives them mandates. People want local democracy. This bill weakens it. British Columbians expect better than this. They deserve better than this.

I want to end with this. The housing crisis is serious. People are hurting. We all know that. But the answer is not that the NDP government take over every city council and every neighbourhood in this province. The answer is not to silence local voices. It is not to rush changes without infrastructure. It is not to centralize power in the hands of one minister.

The answer is partnership, respect, collaboration, planning and local decision-making. This bill betrays those values. British Columbians need more homes, yes, but British Columbians also need strong communities, strong local democracies, strong neighbourhoods and strong voices guiding the future of where they live.

This bill replaces community with control. It replaces partnership with power grabs. For those reasons, for the people of this province, I cannot support this bill.

[4:35 p.m.]

Sheldon Clare: I rise today to speak in strong opposition to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

This bill, despite its impressive title, has very little to do with empowering communities, strengthening families or making housing more affordable. Instead, what it actually does is it represents an unprecedented centralization of power in the hands of the provincial cabinet and the minister at the direct expense of municipalities, rural communities, neighbourhoods and the people who actually live with the consequences of land use decisions.

What we have here before us is a top-down restructuring of British Columbia’s local governance framework disguised as a housing bill. But the truth is much more simple than that.

Bill 25 takes away local decision-making. It strips communities of their voice. It imposes costs without providing the means to pay for them. It assumes that a single, Vancouver-centric model of planning should be forced onto every corner of this province, from Hixon to Quesnel, from Prince George to Langford, from Dawson Creek to Surrey.

This isn’t going to fit. At the very, very least, this is a form of bullying. You take the municipalities, and you tell them how you must live and how you must act and how things will be. That’s not okay. Municipalities are the point of government that most people have direct personal contact with. They’re the people who solve the local problems. They’re the people who understand the issues on the ground within their communities. They are the people who are elected, who live in those communities, who know what the problems and challenges are that need to be addressed.

This bill takes away the ability of those locally elected councillors and mayors to deal with the problems in their own community as they see fit. This bill is a terrible path to trod, a terrible path. It will cost a lot more. It will create huge problems with infrastructure that will colour this situation for decades.

Where are the sewers going to come from for this density and infill? Where are we going to find all of the electrical support? Where are we going to find all of the parking that’s going to be necessary for people? I know in my community, we don’t have a lot of time to deal with infill and stuffing everything together to try to make people be stacked on top of each other.

We’re fortunate in that we have a fair bit of space where I live, in Prince George, and in some of the other communities. But we have other problems, and this bill is not going to address those. What are we going to do with things like problems with land use? What are we going to do in order to meet the needs of volunteer fire departments in getting access to where people actually need the support and infrastructure?

This is not a responsible decision, this bill. It is not democratic. It is central authority and control at its very worst. It’s absolutely disrespectful. Bill 25 represents a massive centralization of power.

As a historian, I look back and I think of the classes I’ve taught about different governments in the 20th century and the types of things they did to consolidate power in order to push particular agendas.

At its core, Bill 25 gives cabinet and the minister sweeping powers to override municipal zoning, sweeping powers to control density, form, height and even parking rules without meaningful consultation and without respecting the unique character of local communities and, dare I say, even local neighbourhoods. I expect to see a great deal of resistance to this particular program.

Under this bill, cabinet can dictate exactly what forms of housing must be allowed in restricted zones. Well, this includes nearly every single family neighbourhood in British Columbia.

[4:40 p.m.]

Under this bill, cabinet can set maximum parking requirements, meaning municipalities may not require additional off-street parking.

Well, it may be the case that in the latte-sipping, incredibly dense neighbourhoods, they can walk to and from their workplace or take a bicycle, even in the winter, to where they need to go, but in places like Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House or any of these communities in the central Interior and in the Cariboo, they need their vehicles, and they will need places to park those vehicles.

A one-size-fits-all approach that takes away local knowledge, local history and the will of the local people to say what kind of communities they want to live in is completely wrong-headed.

Under this bill, the minister can unilaterally enact or amend municipal bylaws if a town or city does not meet provincial deadlines. Well, I would suggest that perhaps the minister needs to run for mayor in one of these communities and find out some of the challenges that are going to be involved with all of this. If they want to take the calls, if they want to be that person who’s going to be doing the dabbling in all of these local politics, maybe that’s a different level of government than the one that we are elected to in this esteemed House.

Under this bill, municipalities are prohibited from using their official community plan — wow. If anybody has ever been involved with the OCP process, you know that it takes years and a lot of consultation to develop an official community plan. Residents are consulted on these official community plans. These plans are the basis for rejecting, delaying and accepting rezoning applications. If we are to take away that ability from municipalities, what exactly are municipalities supposed to be doing?

This bill is unprecedented. I have to postulate the question: why is this government so intent on stripping local people of their ability to make decisions about where they live and how they live? Why is it being so destructive to neighbourhoods and their communities? This is simply not okay.

It is the rural communities in this province that will suffer the most under Bill 25. British Columbia is not one city. It is not a single municipality. It is a collection of municipalities with different goals, aspirations and ways of doing things. That is a reflection of the composition of this House. This is a province of hundreds of unique communities.

Each of these communities has their special challenges. They have their own geography, their own infrastructure and their own capacity to develop their communities as they need, yet what do we have here but Bill 25? This is a one-size-fits-all density requirement pushed upon the province, regardless of local constraints, regardless of wildfire risk, regardless of the realities of the need to develop solid infrastructure.

How will this centralized government control affect small communities with volunteer-based fire departments, for example, like the ones in my riding — communities like Hixon, Quesnel or Bouchie Lake? How will it affect these communities? When you increase density, you increase emergency call volumes. You increase fire suppression needs. You also add problems for access requirements for emergency vehicles and pressure on critical infrastructure.

I would suggest that if we are going to start limiting access with vehicles, perhaps we need to solve the fentanyl crisis and deal with our other issues in this province, because they are driving the need for these departments and emergency services to respond to calls.

[4:45 p.m.]

There’s going to be a ton of pressure on critical infrastructure. There is also going to be a great deal of pressure on just ordinary infrastructure that many of us take for granted. If you think that you’ve got the power out sometime while you’re sitting in a nice, warm neighbourhood and you’re in the winter in…. Pick a community around Prince George, say. If the power goes out, you’re going to get very cold, and it’s not going to be a good thing.

I don’t believe this bill properly addresses the need for infrastructure. Has the minister actually really listened to these communities and met with them and understood the needs that would be affected if this bill were to pass? Has there been a real cost-benefit analysis? A risk assessment? I have not seen any evidence that there has been. It may be there, but not yet.

Bill 25 nullifies decades and decades of local planning work. It overrides those official community plans until at least the 30th of June, 2027. I ask: why is this bill stripping the rights of residents and communities to shape their own neighbourhoods through area planning and OCP processes?

I think to myself of an old family friend, Ted Moffat, who was one of the proprietors of the Northern Hardware. There was an OCP process underway in which there was a desire to do some infill and stack narrow little buildings in tight little spaces in neighbourhoods that had had larger, single-family dwellings — comfortable neighbourhoods, pleasant places. He was asked what he thought about these infills, and he said: “I think it’s ugly, and I think it detracts from the quality of these neighbourhoods.”

Is that what we want? Do we want neighbourhoods that we don’t want to live in? Are we going to drive more and more people out of British Columbia because the neighbourhoods that they are forced to live in become unpalatable, unsafe and without any place to park? It’s shocking to me. Absolutely shocking.

As well, what are we going to do with all of the requirements that density will force? The upgraded sewer system, upgraded water supply, roads, fire capacity, transit, power. How will municipalities handle the cost of these suddenly imposed infrastructure requirements in order to increase the density on these urban lots? Are municipalities going to be increasing taxes? Are they going to increase fees? Are they merely going to borrow money?

There seems to be some belief that all that government needs to do to get out of debt is to print more money. Well, I can assure you that printing more money is not going to solve the problem. In fact, as our history in the 20th century has shown, it will make things dramatically worse.

This bill downloads responsibility without funding, without any significant analysis and far-sighted view of what the real cost of such a bill will cause, the harm it will do. What we need to do is to look at the harm this bill will cause, not the perception of the success or help that it may provide.

Parking. Many years ago I was on the parking committee for the College of New Caledonia. Parking, I’ll tell you, is one of the most severe things that people want to get mad about and argue about. I can tell you that for many years it was a bargaining issue with my faculty union.

I remember fighting the good fight for a very long time about parking. We had all kinds of ideas about it. We would have scramble parking, where you just take it as you come. You could pay parking. You could do all kinds of wonderful things. We got so contentious and set in our ways that the college ultimately disbanded the committee and went to a pay parking system, and that was that.

When we’re looking at neighbourhoods, there are already significant parking challenges in neighbourhoods.

[4:50 p.m.]

I remember driving through one of those lovely treed streets in the greater Vancouver area with a friend of mine in his nice, big, dually wheeled Ford one-ton truck, and this vehicle approached us. There were four or five young ladies in the car, and you could see they were very angry because there was no way for them to get past this truck we were in.

My friend Eli is a professional driver, and I’ve always thought him to be a little bit of a hothead about a few things. But in this circumstance, when he was driving, he got incredibly calm. He looked at those young ladies, who were challenging him for the road in the place where everybody was jammed up on the sides, parked everywhere. They were clearly yelling some words which would be very unparliamentary.

His response was very simple. He mouthed the words, “I love you,” and you could see the ladies in the vehicle all start laughing. We waved. They pulled over. We pulled over. And we made it work. Is that really going to be the solution for every type of parking issue in this?

This bill is a direct attack on the ability of families to be able to get access to their neighbourhoods and be able to park their vehicles, take their kids to school, take them to sports activities or anything they need to or maybe just to go to and from work.

Bill 25 prohibits cities from requiring off-street parking for multi-unit housing. I suppose we’re all expected to have carpools in this sort of arrangement, or perhaps everyone will be expected to be bicycling in the three or four feet of snow that sometimes fills a good bit of the province.

This harms families. Tt harms workers. It’s harmful to seniors. We will see more slips and falls because of this kind of thing, and we will certainly see much more hardship on those rural residents who rely on vehicles, especially in places where transit does not exist.

This bill will create congestion. It’s going to hurt accessibility issues, and it has the potential to increase and cause neighbourhood conflict. Do we really need to stretch policing resources and emergency service resources more than they already are? I think not.

Do we need housing in this province? Absolutely. We most definitely need housing in this province, but are we going to solve it by taking over the role of municipalities, as if they are somehow the problem? Municipalities aren’t the problem here. It is not the problem at all. It is the circumstances which have led to a housing crisis.

Let us look at the roots of this problem and not just try to treat the symptoms with a band-aid, a band-aid that’s going to be ripped off and tear a lot away with it. Real solutions — let’s talk about that. If you want real solutions, you need to have some partnerships with municipalities and work with them to fit the needs of the communities as they are and where they exist.

There is a real need to deal with infrastructure and the funding of infrastructure in all of these communities. Infrastructure is crumbling. I know that. At all the doors I visited during the election campaign, I saw it. I saw it on people’s faces. I saw people who rely on wells for their homes. I saw it in the faces of people whose houses are twisted by the unsettling of ground where they were built. Power requirements, brownouts, blackouts — we’re going to see a lot more of those if we start to do things like Bill 25.

In addition, there must be respect for the official community planning process. We cannot merely throw it out and say: “If thou do not do this, then the province shall, in fact, impose this other.” I’m shocked at this bill. I am absolutely shocked. Where is the local accountability?

One of the great dangers of being in government, I think, from the observations I’ve had in the short time I’ve been here, is this desire to think that if you’ve got nobody who can do this, or if there’s a problem, then you must take control yourself and assert authority, and thus it will be all better.

[4:55 p.m.]

In history, there have been examples where people have appointed themselves to be in charge when they felt that they needed to, in a time of crisis. Usually that hasn’t gone very well. The classic example I think of is Tsar Nicholas II in the Great War, when he had numerous failures on his military front. What he did was to appoint himself to be in charge and to make all the decisions.

The problem with that approach is that if you put yourself in charge of everything, there’s nobody else to fire. You can’t replace that person with someone else. You’ve got to take responsibility. What this bill is going to do, I can tell you right now, is force the government to take an awful lot of responsibility that should have been devolved to a wide range of elected people at the municipal level, to make good, solid decisions based on good information on the ground.

There’s more.

First Nations. It is certainly the case that the expanded use of coordination agreements is a positive step. However, there is a real risk in Bill 25 about overlapping authority and confusion without proper consultation of all parties affected. There should not be a need to create another layer of government in this province. So this must be looked at very, very carefully.

My colleagues, many of them, have also mentioned some of the points I made and also the urban-centric nature of this particular bill and how it would appear to be imposing that view upon the whole province. Bill 25, in effect, treats Quesnel the same as Kitsilano, and Dawson Creek the same as Surrey. It’s ridiculous. It’s not workable; 100 Mile House is not Victoria.

There are many questions that need to be answered and addressed before such a bill could ever be passed, at least by this side of the House. I’m pretty sure that on this side of the House, the folks here who have to go back and talk to their communities and people and listen — which is what we have been doing — are not going to be supporting this. I’m certainly not. Maybe the government could look at these questions.

One, how will centralized provincial control affect volunteer fire departments?

Two, why remove the important, necessary step of relying upon the official community plan authority?

Three, how will municipalities pay for the infrastructure needed to support this density and infill?

Why eliminate the requirements to provide parking? Parking isn’t going away. Vehicles are not going away. In fact, gas and oil are not going away. We need to be realistic here.

Five, why grant the minister power to rewrite bylaws? We have enough trouble writing provincial laws here. Do you really want to be involved in the process of writing bylaws for hundreds of communities across the province? Really?

Six, whereabouts is the rural impact assessment? Where is that? Where are we going to look at the whole province holistically instead of a few big ridings in the Lower Mainland and areas where there are no rural communities?

A Conservative vision for a responsible housing plan would include a few other things. It must include respect for local autonomy. It must address labour and permitting delays. Let’s cut some bureaucracy instead of adding to it. We need to fund infrastructure and have a clear plan for infrastructure before radically changing how municipalities integrate with the province.

We also would want to support emergency services. Emergency services are already under tremendous strain, and this will make things much, much worse.

[5:00 p.m.]

It’s also critical to preserve public hearings and let people have their say about their neighbourhoods. Critically, it’s important to recognize those significant community differences that exist around our province.

In conclusion, Bill 25 is not a housing bill. It is a control bill. It is a centralization bill. It is a bill that will cause hardship, strain and trouble to the people of this province, wherever they live. The residents of Hixon, Quesnel, Prince George, Langford, Surrey, the greater Vancouver metropolitan area…. All of these people, from Abbotsford and Chilliwack on out, deserve much better.

For these reasons, I will not be standing to vote aye for this bill. I will stand to oppose it, and I would encourage others on all sides of the House to do the same.

Dallas Brodie: Bill 25 is classic NDP governance — centralizing power, bulldozing over local voices, the bigfoot approach, blanket density, overriding local zoning and parking rules, moving planning decisions to Victoria.

It’s a story as old as time. Every authoritarian uses efficiency arguments to justify consolidating power, bypassing normal processes and weakening accountability. It may, at first glance, even sound practical. But distributing power and local governance is fundamental to an effective and accountable government.

A one-size-fits-all approach ultimately proves to be both ham-fisted and ineffective. After all, what do politicians in Victoria know about Trutch Street in Vancouver? Nothing. What do they know about your neighbourhood? Nothing. Most have never even walked in your neighbourhood and never will.

Bill 25 strips municipalities of powers they have exercised for more than 70 years, including provisions of the Vancouver Charter, which was originally established in 1953 under the Social Credit government of the late Premier W.A.C. Bennett, a charter which reflected the province’s recognition that a distributed governance framework made sense for a growing Vancouver with a unique set of issues.

In addition to taking away from the municipality’s control over issues best handled at a local level, Bill 25 is sloppy. Bill 25 is an omnibus bill that sweeps together multiple issues, amends several statutes, obscures accountability and fails to directly address even a single well-defined policy goal.

British Columbians are right to be skeptical of this government’s autocratic, top-down approach to ruling the province from Victoria.

I will be voting no on Bill 25 with, I hope, many other people in this Legislature.

Kiel Giddens: I rise today on behalf of the people of Prince George–Mackenzie. Members here in the Legislature won’t be surprised about my position on this bill. My colleagues have raised some legitimate concerns. We have just heard recently from the member for Prince George–North Cariboo. I share a lot of those concerns he raised.

I’m joining my colleagues to oppose Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act. I want to be very clear right from the start. I oppose this bill not because I oppose housing. We absolutely need more housing, and my region needs more housing. Young families in Prince George need more housing, whether they’re workers coming into the mining industry or trades. We need many more workers in our health care system. They need housing.

Seniors looking to downsize need more housing. It’s becoming more and more prevalent for folks in Prince George. They used to retire down to the Okanagan. That doesn’t happen anymore, because the cost is too prohibitive for housing. They’re choosing to stay in Prince George now, so we need new options for them, purpose-built housing for seniors.

[5:05 p.m.]

Prince George is meeting the housing targets that this government set in spite of the government’s rules. The market is meeting the housing needs of people in Prince George. We’re getting purpose-built rental housing, and that’s market-driven. We’re also getting redevelopment downtown because the city council in Prince George has made a distinct effort to prioritize that.

The only thing that’s stopping that progress from happening is this government’s record on public safety. That is actually plaguing our downtown and making it difficult for any investors, any developers, to be looking at building housing in Prince George because people are questioning whether that’s a sound investment. Prince George can make its own decisions on what it needs for our community.

This bill does something that we’ve consistently seen from this government. It hands more power to Victoria and takes power away from local communities — full stop. I can’t support that principle, and the one-size-fits-all approach seems to be part of this government’s record. It’s something that we’ve seen as a trend. We hear it from local governments. We hear it at UBCM. In past housing bills that we’ve had before the Legislature, it has been the same story there.

People in Prince George, I would argue, know their neighbourhoods better than bureaucrats in Victoria. There is nothing against the hard-working people who work here in Victoria, but I don’t expect them to know exactly what is going on with the municipal infrastructure in a place like Prince George, when they are so far removed from those decisions and what’s going on and the local knowledge.

Folks in Prince George–Mackenzie understand our housing challenges better than anyone, as I’ve said. We understand the realities of winter roads. Do members across the way know how big our snowbanks actually are in the wintertime?

We can’t park on the street, actually, because of the snow in Prince George. It’s against local bylaws to park on the street in the wintertime in neighbourhoods. That’s just normal. You’re saying now that we can’t actually park in these new neighbourhoods that you’re trying to build as well? It’s completely unrealistic.

Our workers rely on their vehicles. You can’t expect that folks who have to take long commutes to get out to the mill site for their job at the mill…. They have limited transit. There’s no B.C. Transit that operates out to that area. Our tradespeople have their tools in the backs of their trucks. They need their vehicles for work. Where are they supposed to park?

All of these things are topics I’m going to get into in my remarks, but these local realities are not something that the government has taken into account when Bill 25 was brought forward. We’ve heard concerns already from UBCM. We’ve heard concerns from local governments. But Bill 25 essentially says: “Sorry, local governments. You don’t get a say anymore. Victoria knows best.”

This bill will tell every municipality over 5,000 people — many of them actually are small towns, rural communities, as well as northern cities like Prince George — that they must allow certain types of housing everywhere, even if it clashes with local wildfire interface rules, sewer capacity, local lot sizes or access roads.

If the municipality doesn’t meet the deadline, if they don’t pass zoning exactly the way the minister wants, well, this bill hands the minister the power to simply write the city’s bylaws for them. We have these local governments in place. Why have them at all if the government is going to take over their decision-making?

We have mayors and councillors in place that are duly elected by the people, and the government is removing their authority. Is the government telling Mayor Simon Yu in Prince George that his voice doesn’t matter? He’s the city’s first mayor born of Chinese descent, proud of representing his community, and this government is saying that his voice doesn’t matter.

Let’s be honest. That’s not partnership with a mayor like Simon Yu. That’s not consultation with residents in neighbourhoods like Heritage or the Hart Highlands. It’s not collaboration with my community. Instead, the NDP are doing what they always do — top-down, central planning, very socialist in style in this case, if I do say so myself.

I’ve already talked about the fact that this is a war on vehicle owners and, I would add to that, working families. As I’ve already said, one of the most troubling parts of the bill is this attack on off-street parking requirements.

[5:10 p.m.]

I’m not exaggerating when I say this. This is actually a war on vehicle owners. In northern B.C., a vehicle to get to work is not a luxury. It’s literally the only way to get to work. B.C. Transit just does not fulfil the needs of what is needed in a place like Prince George, let alone Mackenzie.

Bill 25 says that as of June 30 of next year, councils must not require off-street parking for the new multi-unit homes the province now forces them to allow, even in areas with weak or nonexistent transit. That’s most of Prince George, to be honest. Let me add to that. If someone builds a duplex, a triplex or a fourplex on a lot in Prince George, the city is prohibited from requiring even one single parking space for those units.

Like I told you, when those snowbanks are high, we’re not even allowed to park on the street. That’s against the bylaws. Is the government going to change those bylaws? How are they going to deal with snow removal, in that case? Where are snowplows going to go? That’s why that bylaw is in place. That is a huge problem, and I don’t hear any answers on how the government is going to resolve that. We wonder why people are worried about spillover parking, congestion, emergency access and safety with all this as well.

In Prince George, we need space for trucks. We need space for work vans, snowblowers and snowplows. We need room for the things that you need in northern life. It’s very different from life here in Victoria or in the Lower Mainland.

You can’t tell a contractor in Mackenzie or a nurse in Prince George who works night shifts at UHNBC that they don’t need a vehicle. You can’t force a single mom in College Heights to rely on a transit system that simply does not connect every neighbourhood, every jobsite and every shift schedule. But Victoria says: “Trust us. The parking will work itself out.” It won’t, and the people who will be paying the price are regular working families in my community.

What I would say is that local solutions work better than these one-size-fits-all mandates that we’re getting from this government. That’s why our Conservative principles are simple, and they’re very practical. Decisions should be made as close to the community as possible. Municipal councils are elected. They hold town halls. They talk to residents. They know where the roads are narrow or steep. They know where the sewer lines are aging. They know where wildfire evacuation routes already are and where we have struggles and where they need to make special rules for that.

Victoria certainly doesn’t know these things, but this bill is pretending that it does. This government, in this bill, is giving itself the power to dictate the form of housing, the height, the density, the lot layout and even the number of parking spaces municipalities can require, as we’ve said. Really, the message to communities overall is: “If you disagree, too bad. We’ll just rewrite your bylaws anyway.” That’s not good governance, that’s not respect for local democracy, and it will lead to mistakes, and costly ones.

I’m going to talk about a few real examples, local examples, neighbourhoods in my community where this is going to impact.

Ospika Boulevard. I don’t expect that folks would have driven on it, but I’ll just paint a little bit of a picture. Anyone who lives in Prince George knows that Ospika can get very clogged, even on a normal weekday. Now imagine adding multi-unit properties on smaller lots with no required parking.

Where do you think those cars end up? They’ll end up on the sidestreets, where they can’t park in the winter, as I’ve already said. What? Are they going to park on the boulevard, right on Ospika? That’s not really an option either. In the bike lanes that are there right now? That’s probably the only other option that would be left, taking away one of the few bike routes in the city. Of course, it would block the plows in January and throughout the winter.

[5:15 p.m.]

The Hart Highway. Transit service in the Hart is probably one of the most limited in the entire city. People actually have to drive. Families have two or three vehicles, in some cases, because a lot of people have their work vehicles that they have there as well. Tradespeople are keeping their tools in their trucks, so this really puts them at a real challenge.

College Heights — this is one of the high-growth areas of Prince George. It’s already dealing with congestion at the best of times. The Ministry of Transportation will be well aware of the fact that Highway 16 and Domano Boulevard…. This is an intersection. It’s the corner of the three Prince George provincial ridings, but it also happens to be the busiest highway intersection in northern B.C. right now, with the biggest congestion. We will need an underpass or an overpass solution on that.

Adding density in College Heights without really adding any local considerations into this is just going to add to that problem unless we have those local voices who can bring those solutions forward so we can actually do that planning for a neighbourhood like College Heights.

Much of our region sits on a wildfire area. We have an interface. The city has interface management plans. A lot of this is not going to be taking into account the routes and the special interface planning zones that the city has designated. Packing more units onto small lots in areas that are designated for evacuation really doesn’t make sense. Prince George is actually at a fire risk. They’ve done a lot of interface fuel management, but a lot more needs to be done. Honestly, this bill ignores all of the local voices that would be part of that discussion and planning.

I’ll add, maybe, another one. Downtown Prince George is connected to the district energy system connected to local sawmills. How is all this zoning going to fit into this district energy system if there is no actual planning around whether the system can fulfil that or not? We would actually have to change the infrastructure in downtown Prince George, at a massive cost, because we’ve already spent all of this to move into this district energy system. And now we’re not having any local decision-making on how this is going to be planned? That simply doesn’t make any sense.

There are parts of this bill dealing with short-term rentals and First Nations coordination agreements. Perhaps some of these steps could be positive if implemented right. I would agree that First Nations should have a say in their own communities. But as has been said by others, the bill also creates overlapping rules, two levels of authority and the potential for conflicting requirements. That’s unclear, and the legislation may lead to some complications and challenges, if that’s the case, to homeowners, hosts, municipalities, First Nations and enforcement agencies alike.

We do support strong First Nations governance, but we also need clear lines and predictable rules. I’m not sure if what’s in this bill is going to meet that test.

Another major issue, of course, is the underground infrastructure. I’ve already used the example of the district heating system in downtown PG. When you increase density on small residential lots, whether that’s the duplexes or triplexes that we’ve talked about, you’re not just adding the people. You’re adding pressure on the waterlines, sewer lines, storm drains and utility connections.

In many neighbourhoods, especially in places like Prince George, these pipes are decades old, a lot of them from the ’50s and ’60s or even earlier. Many are at the end of their life, and the city now has a backlog to deal with that.

Members in this House will likely remember that the city of Calgary in 2024 had a major waterline break, and it had to basically limit the amount of water that could be used at households. Every municipality of a significant size and age, and Prince George, looked at that and said: “That could be us.” We have those same problems, whether that is in Surrey or Prince George or Vancouver. That’s a real problem, and this bill is not taking that into account.

We all know that B.C. has a housing crisis, but instead of working with communities, this government uses mandates, threats and override legislation. Instead of fixing the ministries that hold up permits, instead of speeding up provincial environmental reviews, instead of addressing skyrocketing construction costs and instead of investing in northern infrastructure and supporting municipalities with their needs, the government says: “Local councils, you do what we say, or we’ll do it for you.”

[5:20 p.m.]

This is not the right approach. This is not partnership. Northern communities deserve respect and not these directives. Let me say this clearly. Prince George is not Vancouver. Our geography is different, our transit is different, our roads are different, our weather is different, and our needs are different. Yet this bill treats every community the exact same way.

Vancouver gets forced into the same parking rules and density rules, even though they have already far more support for transit and funding. If the NDP wanted to design a bill that perfectly ignored the realities of northern B.C., I think this would be an example of what that could be.

Conservatives are really standing for local decision-making. We’re standing for respecting communities, practical solutions for real people. Housing choices, not housing mandates. Supporting families, not squeezing them. Keeping neighbourhoods safe and functional. Protecting emergency access and wildfire routes. Ensuring people can park the vehicles that they rely on.

This bill undermines every single one of those principles. We need housing, but we need the right approach. I will vote against Bill 25 because it fails to balance housing needs with community realities, it ignores northern voices, it sidelines municipal governments, and it takes away that local autonomy. We need housing, but let’s build it the right way and not bulldoze over communities and their decision-making authority.

The people of Prince George–Mackenzie deserve better than this heavy-handed legislation, and that’s why I will be saying no to Bill 25.

Bruce Banman: As always, it’s a pleasure to have the freedom to be able to stand in this place and debate a bill. I rise today with a rather deep sense of responsibility with regard to the people, to my constituents and especially to the local governments that have entrusted this House to uphold their voice to speak to Bill 25, the Housing and Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act.

I get why this government is trying to fast-track housing. Everybody on this side of the House — everybody in the entire House, actually — understands and agrees that we need more housing. I don’t think there’s an argument from this side of the House on that. It really comes down to: do you need to take a sledgehammer when you’re trying to fix a watch? That’s basically what this bill does. It is using a sledgehammer to slam through legislation that really isn’t needed.

Now, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I was proud to have been elected as the mayor of Abbotsford, and then I got re-elected on council. I understand the differences, what municipal government needs versus provincial versus federal.

A lot of people have come to me and said: “Hey, I’m thinking of getting into politics. What do you think?” I said: “Well, actually the most rewarding, in some ways, is when you’re in local government.” The pay sucks. You’ll be getting phone calls all times of the day, and people will stop you in the streets and complain about all kinds of things — the most common of which is usually dogs barking, by the way, or traffic. Sometimes: “My neighbour cut down a tree, and now I’ve got to look in their backyard, and I hate that.” You get those kinds of issues, but you’re actually closest to the people.

How that relates to Bill 25 is that this particular legislation is now going to remove that closeness that people have with their elected city government officials. Now, a lot of people at home don’t understand that municipal governments are not actually an official form of government. They exist at the whim of the province. I was reminded of that a couple of times when I was a mayor.

[5:25 p.m.]

Here’s the problem with that kind of thinking, and this bill does exactly this. What this bill is going to do is take away that closeness that people have. You know, when people have a problem, quite often they phone the mayor or they phone their councillor. Oftentimes, it’s the wrong area of government. I think all of the MLAs here have also received similar complaints, where complainants are actually coming into the wrong office.

What this bill is going to do is basically strip the rights of municipal officials. What’s the point of even having them after this? You’re going to take away the very thing that local municipalities and cities do.

As you have heard from some of my members of this House, there is a vast, vast difference between Watson Lake and here in Victoria. There’s a big difference between Prince George and Kelowna and Ashcroft and Clinton and Princeton. They are not the same. There are areas of British Columbia that transit doesn’t even exist.

You’ve heard about some of the concerns about parking. Now, Abbotsford is unique. We call ourselves the city in the country. Much of it is rural. It’s farmland. We have some uplands.

I had the privilege, when I was the mayor, of actually being in a snowplow. You’ve already heard from the members from Prince George that — you know what? — during snow removal season, you cannot park a car on city streets. I was, firsthand, wondering whether or not the snowplow was going to put a new groove down the side of a Jaguar that was parked on the street in the uplands part.

Abbotsford actually is far enough away that we do get snow, and it comes down. It comes down heavy. It may be raining here in Victoria, but Abbotsford is getting pounded with snow.

The skill that those snowplow drivers have is extraordinary. In some cities, what they do is you park on one side of the street on odd days and on the other side of the street on even days. I remember having that discussion with the snowplow driver.

So the question, then, is: how does this relate to Bill 25? You probably are thinking that to yourself, as you’re about ready to say: “Member, get back to the bill.” I saw it in your eyes. Even though you’re wearing a mask, I did see it in your eyes.

Well, the difference is that in Victoria, what have they got, four snowplows? It might be more than that now. That was the ongoing thing. When it snowed in Victoria, it was a state of emergency because this particular region is not used to heavy bouts of snow. It’s a rare occurrence.

This bill then takes away the right of cities to say: “You know what? We get enough snow, like Whistler, that you have to have off-street parking for your vehicle.” This particular bill takes that away. From a bureaucrat who may have lived in Victoria their entire life and wouldn’t know what snow was like if it was four feet tall because they’ve never been to it…. They cannot imagine how dangerous and miserable and cold it gets when snow starts coming in other regions. How can you imagine something you’ve never personally experienced?

You’ve also heard about how certain regions worry about wildfire. Sometimes it is just not wise to have things sandwiched together because of that. When it goes, everything disappears. Fire is indiscriminate.

[5:30 p.m.]

We think about here, where we have the ability to hop on a SkyTrain or hop on a bus. At 40 below, hypothermia sets in real fast. Real fast. In areas where it may be two or three blocks to get to transit, if it even exists, at 40 below, that could be the meaning between life and death.

How this relates to local governments is they live it, they know it, and that’s why we elect them. What they experience in their…. I know, for instance, what it requires when the snow has hit out on the Sumas Prairie when the winds are blowing. It can be 30 below with the wind chill factor. I’ve seen the freeway shut down. There are actually gates that shut down on the No. 1 freeway between Abbotsford and Chilliwack because it becomes some of the most dangerous road in Canada.

For someone here to understand that, that’s a bureaucrat in Victoria…. How could we expect them to understand? Yet what this bill does…. It’s really kind of a Trojan Horse. And I wonder to myself. Is this really the beginning of the elimination of local governments? It sure as heck sounds like it.

Quite frankly, I do not trust this House to understand what is best for Prince George, Abbotsford, Clinton, Ashcroft, Kelowna, Penticton, Princeton, Nelson. It seems ridiculous, when you start putting it out, that one small area that’s centralized can now ramrod through legislation to cities that are going: “Wait a minute. That does not work here.”

I’ll give you another example. A very dear friend of mine was a garbage truck driver. To this day, he lives with the horror that a young child darted out between two cars and he ended up running over that child. So if we’re going to now park all of our cars on our streets….

He quite often would come to me and say: “Look, this subdivision that you’ve got planned over here is way too tight. I would have to back my garbage truck up and do these five-point, ten-point turns, and I’m putting people at risk. I don’t ever want to go through that again.” It was not his fault. But safety to him is paramount.

We’re now going to take existing cities and say: “You know what? All this off-street parking that you’ve had doesn’t matter anymore. Everything goes onto the street.” It’s out-and-out dangerous, and it’s reckless in some areas. This is why you have to allow local governments to decide what’s best in their neighbourhoods.

I’ll go on further. I got elected after Abbotsford had a problem with water. What had happened was one of the reservoirs dropped below 50 percent. Everybody was watering their lawns. Everybody was taking extra-long showers. And as soon as the reservoir dropped below 50 percent, the engineers started screaming “911.”

Heavy-duty water restrictions happened as a result. The reason for that is as soon as the reservoir dropped below 50 percent and it would not fill up over the evening, you’re now at risk of fire. The engineers will tell you we need to have enough of a reserve in case of a fire.

Every major city, sadly, has learned this lesson the hard way. Even Vancouver burnt to the ground in the early 1900s. The fire was so bad, and the winds were driving it, that the wheels on the buggies allegedly were on fire as they made it over into the inner harbour. Had there not been a few boats there, a lot more people would have perished.

[5:35 p.m.]

How that relates to this is we’re now going to put dwellings on streets that have old infrastructure, where the pipes are literally too small to supply the water. Local governments will have no ability to say: “No, no, not in this neighbourhood. This is not a good idea.”

Potentially, this province, this building could say: “Well, we don’t really care. We’re going to do it anyway because the needs of housing outweigh your…. You guys just sort it out, and you figure it out.” I don’t see where it says this particular House is going to help the cities pay for the infrastructure that they’re needing.

That’s just the water coming in. What about the sewer on the way out? What about the electrical needs? What about the needs for schools, hospitals, parks, shopping, transit that could or could not get in and out on some of these streets that are designed to be narrow? There are so many details in here that are just a plain bad idea to have centralized power that this bill cannot be supported.

Then I’ve heard in here that part 2 of short-term rentals in here allows that all relevant sections of the act are available to modern treaty Nations that choose to enter into a coordination agreement. These agreements allow modern treaty Nations to access tools in the act to help them enforce their own short-term rental laws.

Well, this House has now said that…. Well, this seems to be creating two sets of rules. If you are in some cities, you’re not allowed to have short-term rentals at all, yet if it’s First Nations, now all of a sudden they can have short-term rentals. That’s fine if it works in those particular nations. I can see where it could be a huge advantage to them for tourism.

But if that’s okay in one area, why is it not okay somewhere else? It’s not a good precedent. It just sets up for nothing but a fight. It’s a bad idea.

Now, UBCM municipalities have, for years, asked…. They want collaboration, consultation and resources. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me. When I was a mayor, I hated coming here with my begging bowl, because that’s what mayors are forced to do. We’ve all had it. We’ve all had local governments come to us with their begging bowl and say: “Please. We need infrastructure. We need money for this.”

I know that the Agriculture Minister, I’m sure, has been approached by Abbotsford to help mitigate the floods. The cities can’t pay for that on their own because we’re talking multi-billions of dollars, and the Abbotsford budget is about $400 million. They can’t afford to do that. Nor can they afford to improve the dikes because those are also way outside of their ability to do that.

But rather than have the consultation, rather than listen to UBCM, this particular bill says: “Nope. Yet once again, we know best. The NDP government knows best.” That’s what they’re saying. And they don’t. They just simply do not.

This is a Trojan Horse, as I’ve said. This is a power grab, and it is being tone deaf to the people whose level of government, who are closest to their electorate…. It strips municipalities of their ability to design and build the city the way they wish, the way the people that live there wish.

[5:40 p.m.]

This is not democracy. This is totalitarianism. It is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. I believe that municipalities actually should have more power, not less. I believe that municipalities….

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: I’m sorry, Madam Speaker. There seems to be someone else who would like to speak right now. I’m sure they’re more than welcome to stand up.

Interjection.

Bruce Banman: I’ll wait.

Deputy Speaker: Continue, Member.

Bruce Banman: Not every neighbourhood has to be the same. Not every neighbourhood has to fit within some squeaky little box and idea because this government can’t figure out how to get the province building again. We’re now at one of the worst building efforts ever, and it’s been nine years of failure from this government. I get that they are trying desperately to pull some kind of a rabbit out of a hat, but this is not a rabbit. This is a magic trick, but it’s not a very good one.

This is out-and-out dangerous. It strips local government. If I was a taxpayer, if I was a citizen that voted, I would be furious that they have attempted to do this. You know, quite often in this House, we think we’re important. Uh-uh. You go ask the citizens who their mayor is, they’ll probably be able to tell you. You ask them who their MLA is, they go: “I don’t know.”

We’ve all encountered it. Anybody in this House that thinks they’re all that and a bag of chips, go into a school. Stand beside a mayor, and you’ll find out who the rock star is. It ain’t us. And it’s for a reason. There’s a good reason for that. Mayors are considered to be a big deal because they’re actually the closest to their own people. And they have to listen. To take away a public hearing? That’s not a good idea; it’s not a good plan.

The reason there are public hearings…. Let me give you an example. The reason you have a public hearing is because not every piece of property fits underneath the ideal place and location and necessarily follows. Let me give you an example, a real-life example, that’s going on in my riding right now, where this government thinks it knows best.

I presented a petition today, as a matter of fact.

There is a supportive housing proposal. This neighbourhood agrees, yes, we need supportive housing. Absolutely we do. But this government wants to play a shell game — say it’s for seniors, because that’s what was told — and put it literally across the street from a school, a middle school, where kids are at age, I think, as young as 11.

Now, this particular piece of land is actually zoned P2, which is institutional, even though it’s been a park since the freeway took it over. According to the city’s bylaws, supportive housing is listed among the uses that must maintain a 200-metre minimum distance from sensitive areas such as a school. Now, there’s been lots of discussion about whether or not you should have a liquor store across from a school or a cannabis store across from a school. That makes common sense. We don’t want to do that.

They’ve said that given that the location of this particular one is directly from a school and less than 60 metres away from anything zoned P2, this would seem to indicate that the supportive housing on this property does not meet the separation requirements outlined in the city’s current zoning bylaw.

The zoning bylaw requires a 200-metre distance separation from schools for supportive housing, and they want to know why this particular application was not rejected at its intake. Well, now when we look at Bill 25, we can understand why. Tsk, tsk, tsk, you know. Government is having their own bylaws to protect their citizens. That just gets in the way of what this government wants to ram down their throats.

[5:45 p.m.]

That is not consultation. That is not abiding by the wishes of a certain neighbourhood. Now, this neighbourhood will also say that they understand…. First off, it’s a park. They don’t want to see their park taken away because in this particular neighbourhood, I believe, it’s the only park they have. But they would say: “Look, if you’re going to take a park away, you know what really needs to go there would be supportive housing for mothers that want to get reunited with their kids, because the needs of mothers are different.”

They found out after the fact, by the way, that there was going to be a drug-use site in this particular…. A drug-consumption room I think is the magic $25 word for basically a place to go do drugs. Right across from 11-year-olds. We know, based on others, that it’s going to spill out into the streets.

This location would be ideal for moms that want to reunite with their kids, because they need to be close to a school. That kind of property is tough to find close to a school. It needs to be close to transit. It’s close to transit. It needs to be close to jobs. It’s close to an industrial area where there are both clerical and factory-style jobs. So for some single moms wanting to get back up on their feet again, it’s perfect. Yet there is no consultation that has happened with this.

If we go through with this Bill 25, you can expect to have a lot more of that. It’s totalitarianism. It’s not consultation; it’s the exact opposite of it. It is an affront to democracy. Not every neighbourhood needs to be the same, and I believe you need to listen to the local elected officials who actually know their cities and their neighbourhoods best.

We’ve heard many reasons. Not all zones have the same weather. They have different problems and different risks. Not all areas of this province even have transit. To try and think that everything is like downtown Vancouver, where in some cases it makes perfect sense to be lax on the parking….

There are a couple of buildings, actually, a couple of high-rises in the West End, that don’t even have parking whatsoever. Hey, that works there. It’s not going to work in Prince George, where it’s a six-block trip to a bus, if it exists. In the middle of winter, at 40 below, you may not make it to six blocks.

This is sheer insanity to try and put this one-size one idea and shove it down every single corner of this province.

This is a vast, beautiful province. We have deserts in one area, rainforests in another. We have mountainous areas. We have agricultural areas. We have high-plain grass meadows. We have beautiful waterfronts and islands. It is not anywhere near the same. So why in god’s name are we trying to push this one-size-fits-all, badly thought-out idea onto every corner of a province that doesn’t even resemble one another from an area that, I bet you, has not even travelled most of this province?

I cannot support this particular bill. It is reckless. It’s a government version of bullying. As I’ve said, it’s undemocratic, and it borders on totalitarianism.

I look forward to this House having, for once, some common sense and voting this down.

Scott McInnis: It’s wonderful to be back in the House after a couple of weeks back in our constituencies, with all MLAs here. I know when we’re away from this place, it doesn’t take long to miss it, so it’s nice to be back, I have to say.

[5:50 p.m.]

I want to paint a bit of a different picture here with Bill 25. This is going to be from the lens of the communities which I represent, which are a long ways from here and have their own unique issues which this legislation does not directly address. I want to highlight some of those here today, if you would indulge me.

We are in a housing crisis. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that reality. There’s a solution to that. We need to build as much housing as we possibly can, as fast as we can — a wartime effort to build housing. And we’re kind of doing these little piecemeal things that aren’t really addressing the root of the issue.

I would much rather be debating something that’s — I don’t even know how to describe it — as pressing, I suppose, as the situation which we’re faced with. I would love to have that debate and to work together on how we can really address the root issue of our housing crisis we face in this province.

But we’re here looking at a piece of legislation which is essentially designed for the Lower Mainland and certainly doesn’t work for the communities I’m so fortunate to represent, here in Victoria, in the East Kootenay. I’m going to lay that out in detail.

In a community like Revelstoke, or Revelstoke specifically, it is really hard to find a single detached home for less than $1 million. And you ain’t getting much for that. This is what the housing crisis looks like in a community like Revelstoke. And Golden, Invermere, Radium Hot Springs, Kimberley, not much less than that.

When you have an elderly couple that has to downsize — they’re not able to perhaps look after a three-bedroom home with stairs any longer, and they are looking to move into something smaller — they’re squeezed out of the market in communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke. This is a serious issue. They sell their family home, but there’s nothing available for them to purchase thereafter.

It is a serious issue in my riding. Now, it’s a problem, and it’s because I and my constituents do live in — I’m sorry to offend any other members of the House here — the most beautiful region of the province. It’s always an open invitation, of course, for my colleagues. I’d love to see some more government officials in Columbia River–Revelstoke, because you’d fall in love with it.

The geography in Columbia River–Revelstoke is as follows. I’m painting this picture because it’s really important for the context of what I’m going to be addressing here related to Bill 25. Again, we’re a hub in Columbia River–Revelstoke. Revelstoke Mountain Resort, Kicking Horse, Panorama, Kimberley Alpine Resort, the back-country skiing opportunities, the heli-skiing, the cat-skiing and the snowmobiling bring in hundreds of millions of dollars — billions when you’re looking at indirect support in the communities I represent.

In the winter, it’s because…. It’s very simple. We get these huge blasts of warm, warm Pacific air. And we’re nudged up against the Alberta border, so what do you get? That sheer cold. And when they meet, literally…. Remember when you were a kid, and you used to cut out those snowflakes in kindergarten and grade 1? That’s literally how the snow falls out of the sky when those storms hit. The flakes are like sheets of paper.

Invermere is our driest community, 100 centimetres of snow annually, one metre. Golden is next at 200 centimetres of snow annually, followed by Kimberley at 315 centimetres of snow annually. And the grand prize winner is Revelstoke at 635 centimetres of snow annually.

[5:55 p.m.]

When you’re in Kimberley and Revelstoke and it snows 25 or 30 centimetres, that’s when it usually starts picking up. This is the reality.

We don’t plow our streets with a dump truck with the blade in between the front and the rear axles. We plow our streets with graders, big ones. When I compare that to Vancouver….

Just to put it in context — Revelstoke, 635 centimetres of snow. I’m 193 centimetres tall, and I’m a rather large individual. So it puts it into perspective — three times, over three times me. In Vancouver, it’s a whopping 38 centimetres of snow every year. Victoria, 25 centimetres every year. Again, for comparison, Kimberley gets ten times what Vancouver does.

What I’m getting to here is this idea of eliminating…. I always try to understand the thinking of the government when they’re introducing legislation, regulation and things. I get it. They want to maximize the use of the land for structures to build on. I get that, especially here in cities like Victoria or even more so in the Lower Mainland, where real estate is at a premium. We’re talking about square inches on a lot that could be utilized for things.

But in communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke that get two, three, four, five, six metres of snow every year, the ability to not be able to park on your property and having to park on the street is a recipe for absolute disaster.

It bothers me, because those people in our communities who are plowing our roads…. It’s really difficult, because they have limited resources, but they work their tails off 24-7 after big dumps of snow to clear the streets, because you can’t go anywhere, literally.

Unfortunately, people grumble about that in the community — I understand that — getting on things like Facebook, the local cork boards. “Where’s the grader driver? I haven’t seen him. I can’t get out of my driveway. The windrow is so big.”

What do you think this legislation is going to do when everybody in new builds is parked on the street? It is going to be an absolute disaster. I firmly believe that that wasn’t considered here whatsoever.

As I was asked to speak to this bill and thinking about it, I’m going to call my local municipal leaders to see what kind of consultation they had on this, because it’s pretty darn clear that this bill is kind of disconnected from reality in communities in Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Why the war on vehicles provincewide? My colleague from Prince George–Mackenzie laid it out really well. What are we doing for communities where people rely on their wheels? Again, tradespeople — they have, at minimum, often one-ton trucks with the tool storage on the back. They take up room, right?

You get all these people parked on the street, and you get 45 centimetres of snow, and the grader operator is having to weave around people. It’s going to be an absolute nightmare, and it’s going to create discontent in the communities, pointed in the wrong direction, because the municipality is going to…. Their phone is going to be ringing off the hook. This wasn’t their decision.

Why does this government insist on creating one-size-fits-all legislation? Here we go again. I can’t believe some of the clauses in here.

[6:00 p.m.]

Deputy Speaker: Member, I’ll ask you to reserve your place and move adjournment of the debate.

Scott McInnis: I’m happy to reserve my right to continue at the next sitting, and I would adjourn the debate for now.

Motion approved.

Bill M216 — Professional Reliance Act
(continued)

Deputy Speaker: Members, earlier today during private members’ time, a division was requested on second reading of Bill M216, the Professional Reliance Act. Pursuant to Standing Order 25, the deferred division will take place now.

[6:05 p.m. - 6:10 p.m.]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The Speaker: Members, the question is second reading of Bill M216, Professional Reliance Act, pursuant to what we had during our standing vote.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 47
Lore	G. Anderson	Blatherwick
Routledge	Chant	Toporowski
B. Anderson	Neill	Osborne
Brar	Krieger	Davidson
Parmar	Sunner	Beare
Chandra Herbert	Wickens	Kang
Sandhu	Begg	Higginson
Phillip	Lajeunesse	Choi
Rotchford	Elmore	Morissette
Popham	Dix	Sharma
Farnworth	Eby	Bailey
Kahlon	Greene	Whiteside
Boyle	Ma	Yung
Malcolmson	Gibson	Glumac
Arora	Shah	Chow
Dhir		Boultbee
NAYS — 44
Wilson	Kindy	Milobar
Warbus	Banman	Wat
Kooner	Halford	Hartwell
L. Neufeld	Van Popta	Dew
Clare	K. Neufeld	Valeriote
Botterell	Brodie	Armstrong
Bhangu	Paton	Gasper
Chan	Toor	Hepner
Giddens	Rattée	Davis
McInnis	Bird	McCall
Stamer	Day	Tepper
Mok	Chapman	Maahs
Kealy	Sturko	Williams
Loewen	Dhaliwal	Doerkson
Luck		Block

The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 84A(1), Bill M216 stands committed to the Select Standing Committee on Private Bills and Private Members’ Bills.

Susie Chant: Section A reports progress on Bill 31 and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mike Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:14 p.m.

Proceedings in the
Douglas Fir Room

The House in Committee, Section A.

The committee met at 2:48 p.m.

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Committee of the Whole

Bill 31 — Energy Statutes
Amendment Act, 2025
(continued)

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 31, Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, to order. We’re on the amendment to clause 1.

On clause 1 (continued).

On the amendment (continued).

Hon. Adrian Dix: When we left, we had had a brief discussion of the amendment. As the members of the committee will know, in the questions, we said that there was a limitation on being able to buy and sell interests in the asset to other First Nations involved in the project or B.C. Hydro. So in our view, that area is covered off.

Secondly, with respect to section 2 of the amendment, it says it’s not transferred, assigned or sold for more than the co-owners’ original investment in the facility. We talked about the fact that the asset is both a fixed asset and depreciating and that that really isn’t a section that would make sense or even apply in this case.

We’re opposed to the amendment for those reasons. I understand the reason it was put forward but am opposed to the amendment for that reason. It doesn’t make sense in these circumstances when it’s otherwise dealt with or the section really does not apply.

Larry Neufeld: It has been a couple of weeks, so I apologize if the system is not familiar yet. I appear to have the wrong motion in front of me, so I’m not going to rebut. I think we could…. Did we not vote on this?

The Chair: No.

Larry Neufeld: Not yet?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think, as the member will recall sharply from the debate two weeks ago, Her Honour was awaiting us in the Legislature, so we stood the debate on the amendment and the vote. We were really holding the vote back till now. That’s what we did.

I suggest, unless there are other questions, that we move to the vote on the amendment.

The Chair: Seeing no other questions, I’ll call the question on the amendment to clause 1.

Division has been called.

[2:55 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.]

Before putting the question, I remind members that only members of Section A or their duly appointed substitutes are authorized to vote.

For clarity, the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville is not a recognized member.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 3
L. Neufeld	Mok	Williams
NAYS — 6
Routledge	Parmar	Dix
Ma	Shah	Valeriote

Larry Neufeld: I’d like to follow up a little bit with how we ended things the last time we met. There were a few things in my mind that I did not feel I had full clarity with respect to.

One of them was, honestly…. Again, referencing clause 1 and how the agreements are written, we did talk about the equity formula. We did talk about the set amount that was provided by that formula, and we talked about the percentage of that formula.

[Steve Morissette in the chair.]

I wanted to confirm that I’d understood things correctly, that it is in fact 50 percent First Nations ownership that’s being offered to each nation. I think I’ll maybe ask these in a series of questions, to keep it from being rambling. That would be my first one.

Am I correct that it’s 50 percent First Nations ownership to each of the nations whose area is being crossed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It’s important to get the fundamentals right, so I appreciate the question. As discussed, the joint venture partnership will be 50 percent B.C. Hydro, 50 percent First Nations.

Larry Neufeld: That was my understanding. I further understood that the 50 percent First Nations ownership was, in fact, an equity where they would take the written document from B.C. Hydro to the bank, borrowing based on that note.

What I failed to ascertain in my own mind…. In going back and reviewing the record, I didn’t see it in there either. I admittedly may have missed it. What I’m interested in is: of that 50 percent, is all of that money? Can it be borrowed, or is any of it actual equity from one of the nations that would have to come from another source other than the bank loan?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: As is typically the case with B.C. Hydro, it’s 20 percent equity, 80 percent debt overall. That’s one answer, which doesn’t fully answer the question. That’s true for the First Nations as well. They’re obviously, as anyone else would be, in a position to borrow, in support of that initiative, their 20 percent as well. That would represent their equity contribution.

The member will also know, in terms of the early works on the project, the support of the Canada Infrastructure Bank for the project, and that the project, since we went away, is on the list of major projects put forward by the federal government, indicating its strategic importance not just to British Columbia but to Canada.

That’s essentially the situation. The First Nations are responsible for their equity debt purchase, as is B.C. Hydro, and the overall ownership of the joint venture partners is 50-50.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister.

I’m quite certain that I do understand that answer, but for strict clarity, with respect to the record, when we’re saying 20 percent, that is money that’s coming from a source other than the bank loan.

Perhaps I’m not saying that correctly. More succinctly, what I’m trying to say is: would First Nations, for their equity component, be required to use non-borrowed money to pay for that equity component?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’re responsible for their equity. Just to be clear, it’s 20-80 on the project, which means 10-10, 40-40, if you understand what I mean, on the whole project.

The First Nation is responsible for its equity participation in the project, yes.

Larry Neufeld: One of the things that we didn’t get an opportunity to delve into quite as deeply as I’d hoped at the time was risk. Now, if this line were to be underutilized…. I know that there’s some disagreement in this room around whether there is currently enough power to go into this line and to fully utilize the line. I would say there’s a significant amount of disagreement on that point.

I would suggest, through my question…. That risk of underutilization of the line — is that financial risk shared equally, 50-50, through the partnership?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, the investment is in the asset of the power line, not in the operation of it.

We’ve had this discussion at length, and I won’t repeat it too much, but we’re restarting a little bit here today. I would say that there is enormous interest in this transmission line, based on significant work. There are at least 19 projects, one of which is an LNG project, and there are a variety of mining and port projects and others that have expressed their strong interest in the project.

Yes, B.C. Hydro is proceeding in advance of final investment decisions in many cases because to wait would be to delay this historic opportunity for British Columbia. In terms of the rate of return on the project, I think we had this discussion a couple of weeks ago. The rate of return was established based on Fortis’s rate of return.

That investment in the asset will earn that rate of return for the First Nations that choose to participate in the project, which is, I think, an important thing and an excellent investment for them. It ensures that those benefits of building the line remain in the region and benefit those First Nations. It’s the reason for this debate, because this section, of course, allows for that very partnership, which will have other advantages to B.C. Hydro, including, I believe, ensuring that the line is built on time.

[3:10 p.m.]

With respect to the power available, it’s why B.C. Hydro is doing, amongst other things, the first call-for-power projects, for which there are electricity purchase agreements. The second call for power — a very significant investment in firm power, including Revelstoke 6 and other initiatives, which means we’re preparing for the future.

The member will know, because we’ve discussed this in estimates and elsewhere, that over the last period, really since 2007-08, there’s been a relatively flat demand in B.C., and now that’s changing. That puts, obviously, some pressure on B.C. Hydro to respond to that, and they’re doing that.

You can see this in detail in the integrated resources plan that has recently been filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission, where these things are dealt with in detail. I know that in next year’s estimates, that will be a substantial feature of our discussion.

B.C. Hydro is preparing for that, preparing for this period to do what it does exceptionally well, which is to have the lowest electricity rates in North America and maybe, outside of a place such as Saudi Arabia, the world, which is a pretty impressive legacy of the employees and the people of B.C. In addition, it’s doing what it has always done, from the 1960s, which is to invest in British Columbia to ensure that we build our province and that we take advantage of the opportunities that are there.

There are some people who say, “Well, wait,” but we think we need to proceed, and surely, the people of the northwest need us to proceed.

Larry Neufeld: My question would be a little more direct in this case. Who shares the risk financially if the line is underutilized if it’s not the asset owner?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, in the case of the operation of the line, the people operating the line are B.C. Hydro, and they operate the entire hydro system.

The member talks about risk, and I think you’ll appreciate that there is risk in these projects either way. There’s a risk in not allowing opportunity to take place, and we need to proceed with the project. It’s B.C. Hydro and its ratepayers, just like in Site C, where the risk of the Site C project was taken on by B.C. Hydro ratepayers. In that case, the project amortized over 80 years, which slightly lessens the risk in the present. But it still is felt in the B.C. Hydro rate base, just as it is when we have, in some cases, a lack of investment, especially in distribution.

That risk, which we have to address when new people come to our communities in large numbers, as they have been…. We have to build that, and that is borne by the ratepayers in our system, by B.C. Hydro. That way of dealing with the risk has led us to have, I think, an outstanding Crown corporation with very significant public approval that leads the world on clean energy and has the lowest electricity rates in Canada, tied with Manitoba and Quebec, the other two public hydro systems, and the lowest in the world.

Yes, B.C. Hydro has to manage as it ensures that transmission is available, just as it did with the Interior–Lower Mainland line, which brought power, including from the member’s constituency, to the Lower Mainland. That risk is shared by the B.C. Hydro rate base, but you could argue, in that case, in a massively growing Lower Mainland, that is a requirement of B.C. Hydro in delivering service, just as in this case.

The extraordinary opportunity in the northwest means we have to build more transmission, because the northwest is essentially capped out for energy.

Larry Neufeld: You actually pre-empted my next question, so I’ll move to the one after that. I think that’s getting a little scary. We’re starting to understand each other’s question-and-answer thought process.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: A little bit.

With respect to the…. Again, coming from the perspective of going back to my previous life and looking at acting as an economic adviser on something like this, what type of modelling, if any, was done to show the economic performance of the power line versus any other type of source of providing that energy?

What I’m getting at is moving the call for power from the northeast to the northwest or other forms of power. I’m getting at natural gas.

[3:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: For starters, we did do a call for power for renewable energy, consistent with the Clean Energy Act, which the member will know was put in place under a previous government, Mr. Campbell’s government. We did our call for power for renewable energy, and what we found was a significant reduction in the cost of wind and solar projects that everyone in the world is feeling, whether you’re in Texas or in Iowa or anywhere else.

Those projects are succeeding because they serve a real and significant purpose: low-cost power and, of course, low-emission power as well. The government has proceeded on that with those projects.

We are also proceeding with other projects, such as a sixth unit at Revelstoke that has not been finished. We’re finishing the Revelstoke dam. We’ll have more to say on that later. That’s significant.

We’ve done a call for expressions of interest — that has included, by the way, carbon capture and natural gas projects — on firm power. So we’ve been open to that. That would require amendments to the Clean Energy Act, but as long as the emission situation is addressed, that may be a possibility.

More significantly, in other dam projects, geothermal projects and others, I think we have to be competitive.

As the member knows, the official opposition — we learned this through the debate — is proposing a small nuclear reactor in the northwest as its primary response to the situation. I have to say, that would be extraordinarily unwise. It would be massively expensive, catastrophically expensive, paid for by ratepayers everywhere in the province. You would have to wait decades to get the appropriate regulatory approvals, both international and Canadian.

People say: “Well, there are nuclear plants going on in New Brunswick or in Ontario.” Well, of course we’ve looked at that, and we’re going to continue to look at that. We should see what’s happening, what they’re doing, but they’re putting those nuclear plants beside existing nuclear plants.

It’s being proposed as the major response by the official opposition, even though there’s no way to deal with the waste, no regulatory process. We’d be talking about the 2040s at the earliest, and of course, you’d be talking about it on a fault line. All of those things mean that we believe that this is a better alternative.

There are also challenges with respect to natural gas, for example. You talk about a transmission line. Well, a transmission line delivers…. It’s something we’ve done all over the province for a long time. If you read the Site C report, as I know members opposite will have done during the break…. It was submitted by B.C. Hydro. There are lots of issues around the construction of Site C, but the transmission wasn’t one of them. Some of the transmission lines were ready four years early. B.C. Hydro knows how to build transmission lines.

New pipeline capacity for combined-cycle turbine generation of natural gas, yes, there would have to be, because we’re….

Interjection.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Absolutely. Of course, still a transmission line north, inevitably, depending on where you put the plants, if you’re going to service all this.

This is the best possible project. We reviewed those options, and we did what B.C. Hydro does best, which is that we’re building a transmission line to take clean electricity to the northwest.

With respect to who pays, well yes, the people of B.C. do pay for B.C. Hydro infrastructure. People in the northwest paid when we built the Interior–Lower Mainland line, which the Leader of the Opposition supports. But he doesn’t think the people of B.C. should pay for the one going to his riding and his community. Well, I don’t agree with that. I think we should give opportunity to everyone.

B.C. Hydro is there for everyone. It’s our Crown corporation, and we should distribute clean electricity across the province, and that’s what we’re doing.

On the question of natural gas, because I know the member is very interested in that, and we’ve talked about it during estimates debate and both publicly and privately, there are opportunities with natural gas.

We have, compared to other jurisdictions, lower-emission natural gas because of the methane regulations that have been put in place by this government, by the CleanBC program and which were also put in place on the ground by the innovation of the natural gas industry.

The electrification of LNG leads to lower-emission LNG as well. This gives us a competitive advantage internationally in the LNG markets, which was demonstrated in the Premier’s recent trip to Asia. So there are opportunities there.

[3:20 p.m.]

We have obligations and responsibilities, but I think that the calls for power have gone very well for B.C. Clean, renewable power at a dramatic 45 percent lower price than we saw ten years ago. I think those were the right decisions in terms of getting electricity to the northwest. So a 24 percent increase in electricity in the two calls for power and Site C.

Obviously, Revelstoke 6. Obviously, the call for expressions of interest on firm power, on which we received, believe it or not, 19 gigawatts of proposals, which is extraordinary. There’s real opportunity. Our job and B.C. Hydro’s job in that call for power was to look at price and look at other considerations and make the right decision, which they did, I think, in going forward.

That’s the reason we’re going forward in this way. Yes, I’m proud to say that it addresses issues of climate change. But B.C. Hydro has always done that by producing clean electricity that is the pride of B.C. It allows us, for example, to do so well internationally, through Powerex and others, because we have this extraordinary battery, which is a real support for more intermittent forms of power like wind.

All those things are possibilities. We’ve been, I think, open-minded, but we’re not open-minded about our commitment to driving the economy of the province in the northwest. That’s why we’re building a transmission line to double capacity to the northwest.

We’re extraordinarily committed to seeing the opportunities of a clean economy and clean energy, which B.C. is uniquely positioned, I think, in the world to take advantage of. That allows us, as well, in areas such as the natural gas industry, to lead the world in terms of emissions.

Larry Neufeld: I know the minister and I chatted about this before we went on camera, but being that we are on the record, I would like to take the opportunity to apologize for shaking my head in the negative while the minister was speaking. I will blame that on my current physical condition. I do respect the minister, and I apologize for that.

With respect to…. That’s where, honestly, I was going, and I thank you for the segue. I think it might be a little scary how closely we’re starting to think together.

I talked about economic modelling, and you spoke of natural gas. Again, the pipeline situation is something where, perhaps, we’ll have that conversation offline, but it’s very different. Gas is a compressible item. It acts as a fluid in a certain case, but obviously, it’s a gas. It’s very different from oil. Adding compression, it’s very easy to double capacity, if not more. It’s incredibly easy. We’ll have a point to debate in the future on that one.

Where I was going with economic modelling is that the billions of dollars that were spent by private industry getting that gas to the coast has already been spent. That money has been spent by private industry, not by the ratepayer and not by the taxpayer.

I would suggest further that through additional compression, additional capacity is very readily available. Where I’m going with this, from an economic modelling perspective, is that I have looked at the models in the neighbouring jurisdiction. This is something where I’d be very willing to share the information with the minister.

Right now, with natural gas generation in the province to our east, Alberta, out of the latest natural gas model, they are not only generating power for a significantly lower amount per megawatt hour than what we are with the green power; they also created the equivalent of a Site C dam at a fraction of the cost. And that’s not including that it’s a fraction of the cost of the transmission line.

My question. Has building one of these plants, which B.C. Hydro’s own information suggests is two years out, been considered as an economic model? Scalability and delivery time are significantly different. Has there been any economic modelling done that would take into account the difference between the natural gas and the need for the North Coast transmission line?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the comparisons to Alberta are apt because, of course, electricity prices in Alberta are way higher than here. With respect to wind and solar, Alberta, you could argue, certainly has been more advanced than British Columbia in development of those resources.

I don’t think they’re making the argument that wind power isn’t useful in Alberta. Wind power is very useful in Alberta, because they share, with the member’s region, outstanding wind resources in the province. They have been developed quite significantly and, interestingly, have only been restrained by actions of the Alberta government recently, which has taken some action hostile to those industries, for their own reasons that I won’t get into here.

I don’t think gas is a viable alternative to NCTL. That’s not a realistic option, building gas generation facilities and the new pipelines that would be required to feed them — they would be required — and including some of our natural gas capacity.

Again, these are issues that we’ll no doubt talk about in estimates next time — existing natural gas capacity that needs significant rehabilitation, as the members will know and, certainly, as people who are customers in the northwest know very well at present. I’m sure the member has heard from them, as I have.

It would take, obviously, significantly longer than NCTL to do that. We’re beginning construction next summer. Really, gas-powered generation is a much longer-term solution for the northwest than here.

To make this point — we won’t go further off on this tangent, which is an interesting one that we can debate — turbine and equipment manufacturers are quoting five to seven years for large-frame turbines if ordered today. We’re seeing this in Alberta, and the original discussions around AI and around data centres that took place a few years ago had to be changed significantly as a result.

I’ll just say, finally, with respect to Alberta and British Columbia, our transmission system, our electricity system, is a massive advantage to us. Extending it into the region is good news for people in that region of British Columbia who are, like everyone else, the owners of B.C. Hydro.

What they don’t have in Terrace is a sufficient gas supply. You would need to take steps to make it feasible. And if you built, say, in Terrace a combined-cycle natural gas plant or the opposition’s preferred model, which is nuclear reactors, you’d still require, of course, transmission or phase 3 of the line from there and, probably, other phases of the line to get to other projects — for example, the FPX project, which is along phase 1 and 2 of the line.

Larry Neufeld: I do want to clarify a couple of things before I go into the next question. I know nuclear was brought up in the debate. That is not the official opposition’s solution. Natural gas is. We are open to the conversation. That is what I am saying. I will absolutely give you a chance to reply to that.

I know it was discussed many, many times. I know the minister is very adept at recording how many times that may have been said. I’m not doubting you. As the critic for that area, I will tell you that that’s not our official position. It’s something that we are open to conversation on, but it’s not something…. Natural gas is the alternative that we’re looking at here.

[3:30 p.m.]

What I wanted to clarify, as well, from my previous question is that I wasn’t actually comparing the difference of wind power in Alberta to wind power in B.C. I was comparing the cost difference in natural gas generation in Alberta versus the cost of wind generation in B.C. That cost comparison right now is $62.78 per megawatt hour in Alberta for natural gas–generated power. Call for power 2024 was $75. We don’t know yet for 2025.

Going back to my question around economic modelling, was there any consideration for ratepayers around that discrepancy in numbers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, there’s no discrepancy in numbers. We put the information clearly on the public record. There’s no discrepancy in numbers. Apples to apples, this project will be completed more quickly. It allows power we’re generating through dams and through existing transmission and through these calls for power, incremental power, to be made available in the northwest in order to support the massive economic opportunity in the northwest.

I appreciate the member’s comments on nuclear. But consistently in the debate, and it’s important to correct this, the opposition said that it could be done at a fraction of the cost. Well, that is nonsense. It’s not just wrong; it is nonsense. You couldn’t do it.

I think it’s an important debate to have, because I think people sometimes think there are magic solutions. There’s no magic solution. There are significant opportunities in natural gas. That’s why we’re pursuing them and working on those opportunities.

In this case, providing more clean electricity, the 8 percent incremental electricity from Site C…. We have a system. We don’t just have one project. The several projects in the northwest that are taking place, wind projects. Several projects in the northeast. Obviously, in the Okanagan, in the Nicola Valley and on Vancouver Island. Nicely distributed around the province to support our system, which is really aided by the battery that is the B.C. Hydro system. It was the best option here. That’s why we’re pursuing it.

I think to say to people in the northwest: “Well, it’s good enough for Vancouver. It’s good enough for the Kootenays. It’s good enough for everyone else. It’s not good enough for you….” I think it is.

It’s the way that’s also consistent with the Clean Energy Act, which is from a previous administration. We have been, I think, quite open in looking at firm power, where it’s important to look at alternatives to that, to look at hydro projects that were previously excluded under the Clean Energy Act. But then, that’s a debate for estimates.

Larry Neufeld: With respect to clarification, one of the things that I would like to add to that is that absolutely, I support and we support electrification of the North Coast — 100 percent we do, without question. What I would suggest, though, is to do it in the most cost-effective, most responsible ratepayer model.

What I would further suggest is that in the estimates stage, there is going to be some very compelling information that I’ll be able to share that would show that we could do it for, as I’ve said from the beginning, a significantly smaller number.

I guess one of the other questions that I will ask is: was there a technical review done in any way?

I know we talked about the power and sending it to different industries. One of the industries that I’m very familiar with is LNG. I’m not going to use the word “intermittent.” The reliability percentage of hydro, of electricity versus natural gas on-site generated electricity…. I know for a fact that there have been concerns around that ability of the grid to be able to provide the level of high reliability that’s needed without an emergency gas-fired backup. Was that considered at all in the analysis of whether to push forward with this project or not?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the position of the opposition, just to be clear on this point, is to stop work towards a power line from the northeast to the northwest. That’s the position as expressed, and I don’t want to put too much emphasis on this, by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that explicitly. He has referred disparagingly to renewable energy and has repeatedly said he opposes this project.

I appreciate the change in position, and we’re not going to focus on that part of the debate, but I just want to be clear that that’s the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Now, as I know more than anyone else in this place, leaders of the opposition change. I’ll just leave it at that, but that’s what the Leader of the Opposition’s position is.

As the member will know, with respect to LNG, we have a position in support of electrification of LNG, which is relevant to the Cedar LNG plant, which is an extraordinary initiative. It’s one of the reasons why Haisla First Nation is so supportive of Cedar LNG, and it’s a remarkable opportunity. It’s not the case for LNG Canada 1 and presumably won’t be the case for LNG Canada 2, which obviously require quite a bit of electricity but ultimately are gas fired.

In the case of Ksi Lisims, that project will also, when we reach it, be electrified. This gives us a competitive advantage. It allows us to address our international and national obligations and also the extraordinary opportunity of LNG potentially for our communities if we’re conscious of these other questions which are vital to people, not just here but in the northwest itself, in terms of emissions and other things.

Ksi Lisims has not received its final investment decision. But we have now and since 2018 the final investment decisions for LNG Canada 1, which is approaching completion. The second train is almost completed of Cedar LNG, of Woodfibre LNG. And there’s a bunkering project at Tilbury. This is, I think, B.C. setting an example for the world on how you do industrial development. And there weren’t, of course, any projects before then, so I think all of that is positive.

In addition, this electricity is absolutely vital — we’ve heard the people of the Yukon want it — for the development of mines in our province. Regardless of where you put your plant, you’d still need, of course, transmission to go to those mines. Having clean electricity to those mines is a huge competitive advantage for B.C. It’s why so many industries want to be here.

Part of my task as Minister of Energy is to make sure we have the electricity. That’s why you’ve seen calls for power. That’s why you’ve seen calls for power again. The firm power, expressions of interest, the investment in Revelstoke 6 and other things. We believe that we absolutely can deliver in the region, and B.C. Hydro has proven that over decades and decades.

It doesn’t mean they don’t have lessons to learn some of the time. That’s what the Site C report does. It’s a lessons-learned report. It also shows the extraordinary skill of B.C. Hydro in delivering both generation and transmission and distribution of electricity that keeps the lights on and empowers our province, and has done for generations.

Elenore Sturko: I thank the members for a little bit of time. I’m going to ask a couple of questions, and then I’ll allow my colleague to get back to his line of questioning.

Minister, I understand that the aim of this bill is to speed up the way that we can build the North Coast transmission line, to offer an opportunity for First Nations to enter into partnership with B.C. Hydro to become stakeholders in this project.

But we do know that there are a number of First Nations who don’t support, for example, Ksi Lisims. They said that they’re not supportive of building a transmission line that will go towards oil and gas projects, to LNG.

[3:40 p.m.]

What will happen in areas where we have the need to have the transmission line going through, where we have First Nations that have said that they will not support that project because they do not support the end result, which would be providing power to these oil and gas projects?

Hon. Adrian Dix: First of all, the purpose of the bill is to allow First Nations participation, which isn’t currently allowed in this project, a partnership between B.C. Hydro and First Nations. We have that participation and sharing on a lot of clean power projects right now, but those are essentially IPPs. Hydro’s relationship is a contract to the IPPs. So that’s what that allows.

We’ve been working since the summer of 2023 on a partnership with First Nations along the line. So far, that had been focused on phase 1, which is roughly Prince George to Fraser Lake, phase 2 from Fraser Lake to Terrace. Then presumably, we’ll go up, and we’ll be starting the work on phase 3.

We don’t have all the agreements in place yet, but I think this option of, if you will, sharing the upside together makes a lot of sense in terms of getting projects built and done on time and done quickly and involving directly First Nations in the benefits of projects. This is something that not just the government is doing but, you’ll note, in terms of its system, Enbridge is doing as well — for example, in sharing equity with First Nations, with the support, in that case, of the federal government.

I think it’s a good model, going forward, that assists with things. It doesn’t address all of the issues. In the case of the North Coast transmission line, it’s the B.C. Energy Regulator that will have responsibility for the application of provincial law along the line and the responsibility of B.C. Hydro to ensure that the line is built.

We ensured that was the case in the passing of Bill 14 earlier in the year. B.C. Hydro will have its obligations in building the line, and the joint venture department will have obligations, including the First Nations.

With respect to the Ksi Lisims project, which obviously is not built, I’ll just briefly say the Ksi Lisims project went through a lengthy environmental assessment. There was significant participation in the project. There was a recommendation to approve the project by the environmental assessment office. Significant consultation was held. I think a number of nations supported the projects — others did not — in that discussion.

Like any other private sector proponent, Ksi Lisims, led by the Nisg̱a’a Nation, will have to work on issues around concerns that communities have with their project. That said, it’s clearly a strong project that received the support of the federal government, which views it as a major national project in Canada.

Ksi Lisims will work to address all of the issues and the numerous conditions of the environmental assessment certificate that were put forward. They’ll have the responsibility of satisfying that, and I expect they will. Like any other proponent, they’ll be working with the communities to see that that happens.

Elenore Sturko: A follow-up for the minister.

If, after all this process, which the minister described, to get approval for Ksi Lisims….

We know that the Prime Minister has said this is a priority project. If First Nations whose jurisdiction the transmission line would be going through do not want this to go through their territory because they are opposed to this project, is the government prepared to build this transmission line regardless of the consent of the First Nation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say, with respect to the project, we’ve been negotiating for two years with First Nations, and there’s been no evidence of non-consent so far. Quite the contrary. It may be that some First Nations choose not to participate in the equity arrangements, and if that’s the case, existing permitting processes apply.

Remember, in the case of the North Coast transmission line, from Prince George to Terrace in particular, this is a twin line. So 90 percent of it is the same right of way, so it’s another transmission line beside an existing transmission line that serves the whole community, First Nations and other communities throughout the region.

Our view is that while we don’t have term sheets signed with all the First Nations, we expect that will happen. And certainly, they’re engaged with us in their participation in the project throughout the area.

[3:45 p.m.]

There will be debates in some First Nations, I’m sure, in the future around these questions around participation. But I think the approach of B.C. Hydro, which is to involve First Nations and equity participation in a clean energy project, is broadly supported. We’re discussing the terms of that, as you’d expect us to do. But I think this is one way. And it’s not just ourselves. It’s private sector investors as well.

The partnerships we see between Cedar LNG and private sector proponents, for example, led by the Haisla First Nation, and the partnerships on Ksi Lisims itself between the Nisg̱a’a First Nations and others are evidence of such partnerships that probably, at this scale, we’ve never seen before. I see it as an immensely positive thing, and B.C. Hydro is participating in that as well.

The benefit of that, I think, will be a transmission line project that is massive in scale. Prince George to Terrace for the first two phases is already massive. It will have support and participation for First Nations. That’s the work we’re doing.

Elenore Sturko: Just one second follow-up. What I understand the minister to say is that this opportunity offers a benefit to First Nations and that it’s their expectation that people will sign on because of what this legislation represents. But they still don’t have agreements with all nations on where this transmission line would go. We’re talking about a $6 billion investment with the potential for it to be even more as the line goes on its second phase. Billions of dollars.

Does the minister not think that it would be prudent to make sure that we do have the alignment and agreement and at least the…? Knowing that those who are currently opposed to Ksi Lisims…. This was just in the media this week, talking about First Nations that are not in the area where this LNG and Ksi Lisims will be, but the transmission line itself that will provide this power…. It is through that jurisdiction that this transmission line will go.

In order to avoid the delays that this legislation is meant to mitigate, does the minister not think it prudent to make sure that all First Nations who would be involved in these negotiations have agreed before going ahead with this project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There’s always work to do on projects, but there would be enormous opportunity lost if we took that position. We expect to have shovels in the ground next summer on the North Coast transmission line, and we’re building up that partnership to see it happen. B.C. Hydro also has all the obligations under permitting required under the law to meet those standards, and I expect that they’ll do that.

With respect to this project, which provides vital electricity service, not least of which is to residential customers — including First Nations in the region, who sometimes don’t get the best possible service, I think it’s fair to say, in the region — we hear from that for some time that not going ahead with this project or delaying it for years into the future would not be the prudent course. That’s why we’ve been working with First Nations for two years on partnerships there.

Elenore Sturko: I understand the benefit of the project. The sales job from the minister isn’t necessary to convince me that we don’t want delays in projects, especially ones that will bring electricity to mines.

But there is the potential, when you have First Nations that are opposed to projects that will be electrified by the North Coast transmission line, the possibility that we could be then entering into civil litigation where we would have the Interpretation Act and things. Previously, where we’d be able to take action, perhaps we won’t be able to take action.

Perhaps, there will be even greater delays if this government doesn’t go ahead and make sure that it has these issues, particularly with First Nations that are opposed to the electrification of some of these oil and gas projects and other mining projects that are going to be electrified thanks to the North Coast transmission line.

Would it not be prudent, though, before going, to make sure that we aren’t actually delayed later down the line because there’s some sort of civil litigation that’s going to come forward as a result of not having these issues addressed before the project commences?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say that it’s why we’ve worked for two years and over 300 meetings so far with First Nations on this project, and we’re at phases 1 and 2. We have to build phases 1 and 2 to get to phase 3.

This is clean electricity that’s going to go across the province. I appreciate that people may…. It’s even possible that there are MLAs in this House that are concerned about the projects that receive the electricity. For this project, that may be the case. But I think that this project ultimately is going to be successful. We’re going to proceed. We’re going to meet our permitting requirements, which involve significant consultation in all cases, as they do with all projects, public and private sector.

We are proceeding in this process. We’re doing the work, which is, so far, 300 meetings with First Nations. I suspect there will be 300 more before we’re done. I believe the project is going to succeed and go forward, because the region needs electricity, not least of which are First Nations communities, which have aspirations that are not just limited to Ksi Lisims but to many other projects in their communities.

Jeremy Valeriote: I’ll just follow up a little bit on those questions.

I reviewed Hansard from the last time we were together, and the minister listed four First Nations or groups on phase 1 and nine on phase 2 and then was asked a double question, to which my colleague from Peace River South is sometimes prone. Have all First Nations whose territories are being crossed been contacted?

Second question: have any of them refused to engage in negotiations? The answer, according to Hansard, was yes. I think I was out of the room at this point.

Can the minister specify which nations have refused to engage in negotiations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think sometimes I try and focus in on whether the question is a negative question or a positive question. But all the First Nations have participated in discussions and negotiations, all of them. The distinction is that not all have signed term sheets yet.

We’re continuing to work across the project to see that the term sheets are signed. There will need to be final agreements. So there’s a further stage, signing a term sheet. We’re hoping to have all the First Nations along the line take advantage of this opportunity to participate.

Everybody has been part of it. They’ve been part of these 300 meetings that I’ve talked about, and there’ll be many more to come. There’s obviously a lot of interest in this project. The existing transmission line, which this doubles, is hugely important, hugely valuable in the region. Doubling it will give more opportunities.

Along phase 1 and phase 2 of the line, those discussions have been going on with all the First Nations for some time. They’re organized slightly differently in the two phases. Phase 1 nations and phase 2 nations are differently organized on these projects, but all of the ones along the full length of the line have participated in the process.

Jeremy Valeriote: I appreciate that.

How does the minister envision term sheets in varying stages of agreement in a parallel process with the free, prior and informed consent of these 13 nations plus phase 3?

[George Anderson in the chair.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: What’s being offered is an opportunity to partner on this infrastructure, to own this infrastructure together, to receive a rate of return on that infrastructure — which, in terms of overall benefit, is the rate of return minus the cost of borrowing, and a significant and ongoing rate of return for all nations. It’s our position, our approach, to treat nations in an equal way. We’re certainly doing that, and we’re just continuing that work.

This is the definition of working together, to start these discussions in 2023 that include discussions on the route and the project and who participates and perhaps opportunities, employment and other opportunities in the building of the line. This is deep work that reflects the work we’re doing together with First Nations on the project.

[3:55 p.m.]

It has been a unique experience for B.C. Hydro because we’re passing this legislation now, after all this work, not at the beginning but now, because of the significant work that’s taken place up to now.

It may be the case that some First Nations choose not to take advantage of the partnership that’s being offered, ultimately. I think it’s an extremely valuable partnership for them and for us, but that may be the case. If that’s the case, that’s, of course, an expression of their position on joining us in the partnership. But I’m optimistic that people will take part.

Jeremy Valeriote: So does the minister interpret…? If a nation ultimately decides not to take part in the partnership, does that also not constitute non-consent?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, that would reflect their ultimate decision not to participate in that commercial opportunity.

Jeremy Valeriote: I have one more question on the agreements that comes courtesy of my colleague in the Third Party, who wanted me to ask about a non-derogation clause in these term sheets, which I understand to be protecting against further erosion of Indigenous rights and titles.

Can the minister tell us whether there is a non-derogation clause in these agreements?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As the member will know from other debates on other bills, there’s a section of the Interpretation Act that provides support and protection for these questions, but there’s nothing in these agreements or in this legislation that would have any further effect.

Larry Neufeld: Staying with the theme that’s been presented by my colleagues, I would ask that…. These would be more around the Utilities Commission component with relation to the First Nations that are affected by the transmission line.

The government’s previous press release stated that the BCUC will not be reviewing whether, which we’ve already established, as that wouldn’t be in the public interest…. The review would have included whether B.C. Hydro has done sufficient First Nations consultation.

What has created something different where now we don’t need the Utilities Commission and it’s the ministry that decides when that consultation is sufficient?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think the member is talking about a certificate of public convenience. We’ll be directing that one not take place because the decision to proceed with the transmission line has been in place for some years, so having another 18-month process to decide whether the transmission line should be proceeded with doesn’t make sense to us. The decision has been made.

B.C. Hydro did significant work in 2023 to assess demand and discovered there was more than sufficient demand to require the North Coast transmission line to be built. We proceeded, then, in an engagement process with First Nations on a form of co-ownership of the asset, and that work has been going on since then. We believe that proceeding with a certificate of public convenience on this process would not be useful work, given that the decision has been made to proceed.

To have an 18-month to two-year process about whether to proceed wouldn’t make sense, and it would itself have significant costs not just to this project but to the extraordinary potential in the northwest that we see. So we decided to…. We’ll proceed with that.

[4:00 p.m.]

Now, this is not part of the legislation. I tend to be fairly broad in my interpretation of these things because I don’t think it’s useful. It’s useful to have the debate. It’s not part of the legislation. Obviously, this section essentially addresses the question of First Nations participation, but I take the member’s question seriously, and I’m happy to answer it.

Larry Neufeld: I do appreciate the latitude, as I agree. Something of this magnitude, that we know of, is $6 billion for two-thirds of it. I guess I will have questions further on, on how that number came to fruition and how it was established, how it was vetted.

Staying with the thought process at mind…. I will admit this question was handed to me, so I don’t have a lot of follow-up to it other than to say that power projects affect First Nations other than First Nation equity owners, which has partially been addressed here today.

The example that’s been given is K’ómoks. It says that K’ómoks First Nation alleges its rights will be infringed by one of B.C. Hydro’s 2024 call-for-power projects, as the transmission line crosses its territory. How will the North Coast transmission line mitigate the same type of complaint?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The government is seeking partnerships with every First Nation along the line and has been in discussions with them for two years. There are always issues on projects, and often issues, should I say, between First Nations.

In the case of the other project that the member is referring to — this is, again, more of an estimates debate than anything else — there are issues between the proponent, which is one First Nation, and neighbouring First Nations. Dealing with those questions are often questions for the proponent. They have to meet the permitting requirements of the government and of the law. They’ll be working to do that over time.

In the case of the North Coast transmission line, we’re proceeding with a project that’s a twinned line on an existing line, for 90 percent of it, from Prince George to Terrace, and all of the First Nations have been engaged in an opportunity to partner on the line.

We also have an outstanding record of consultation at B.C. Hydro. Should there be non-participation for some reason, there’s obviously significant work and consultation that will take place, while meeting the permitting requirements of the North Coast transmission line. That will happen in any event because we have a requirement, of course, to follow the law.

The Chair: We’re on clause…. Recognizing the minister. Oh, goodness. I am recognizing the member for Peace River South.

Larry Neufeld: I’m open to whatever suggestion you might have, Chair.

The Chair: I retracted it.

Larry Neufeld: Acceptable.

At the danger of being slightly repetitive, I don’t think that it is. Again, I will state that this is one that’s been handed to me. It does state that — I guess I can say his name on the record — Vaughn Palmer from the Vancouver Sun has actually suggested that the government does, indeed, have a poor track record of being transparent with First Nations.

With the lack of oversight from the Utilities Commission, will there be anything within the agreements from clause 1? I know the minister has answered this, but would there be…?

We’ve talked about Hydro having a better relationship than, perhaps, the government does. I’m not disagreeing one way or the other. I find Hydro to be a good organization. I have no personal complaints whatsoever. Is there anything that is being done differently through these agreements from clause 1 that would suggest otherwise from what’s been stated here?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think what you see in this project…. We had a discussion of this, I think, when we debated this on Thursday afternoon, almost two weeks ago, about the level of transparency in this project that’s required, not just between B.C. Hydro and First Nations but amongst First Nations, for this to go forward.

We have a flexible process in that the phase 2 discussions are slightly differently organized by the First Nations than the phase 1 discussions. We’re flexible in dealing with that, and I think that’s a positive thing.

It’s, say, hundreds of meetings. There’s sometimes the case that the information flows from B.C. Hydro to First Nations. It also has flowed significantly the other way and greatly assists B.C. Hydro in this extraordinary task of building the transmission line.

[4:05 p.m.]

I think the North Coast transmission line is new. That’s why we’re passing legislation in its structure, because we’ve never done this before. We haven’t passed legislation to allow it to happen, and that’s what we’re doing.

I’d say that with respect to our relationship with First Nations, this has been a very valuable process. But it’s not over yet, and First Nations will ultimately make their own decisions about their participation in the project.

I think this and some private sector models have shown the progress that’s been made at a site — for example, the success of the Haisla First Nation, in partnership with significant capital, to build their Cedar LNG project, which is under construction. That is quite extraordinary to see. I think the member may have visited the site this summer. These are new models, but I think they assist us in achieving our goals together.

That doesn’t mean everything’s perfect all the time. These are real discussions between, in this case, B.C. Hydro and First Nations. But I think the process goes well. We’re working hard on it. We’re working hard in good faith. I’m hopeful there’ll be a term sheet and partnership, but that won’t mean there’s not more work to be done in ensuring that the project is properly permitted and properly built. There will be. I’m very, very confident we’ll do that work together.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Rather than say I found it interesting, I’ll just state that really, what the concern from my end is…. I’m a very analytical person, and when I sat down and went through, trying to understand the economics of this project, I struggled quite a bit to get there on why this made sense. I’ll state it. In fact, I’ll ask it in the form of a question.

Is the purpose of the North Coast transmission line primarily to be used as a reconciliation project?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No, the purpose of the North Coast transmission line is the transmission of electricity, which benefits First Nations communities. It will benefit them both as members of communities and as economic forces in the region, which they surely are.

The member has talked about one or two of the projects that are being led right now by First Nations. The extraordinary efforts in the northwest of the province on mining with, for example, the Tāłtān and with mining companies, I think, are important, about building a brighter future together, which is what we surely need to do.

The reason we need more electricity in the northwest is…. This may seem a little fine, but it’s because we need more electricity in the northwest. There are these mining projects which have been established that require very significant electricity to proceed. There’s all the activity at the Port of Prince Rupert. There are all of the projects that are considered in the northwest that are, I think, a generational opportunity.

It’s not just me that says it. It’s the Mining Association of B.C. that says it. It’s the government of Canada that says it. To look at the figures and what they’re based on, just so that we go through, this is $9.85 billion per year to GDP, and B.C. Hydro is facilitating that. It’s $950 million per year to public and provincial and municipal revenues. It’s 9,747 direct FTE jobs per year. It’s 10,953 indirect FTE jobs per year.

Customers with clean electricity will also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two million to three million tonnes. This is based on just 19 of the prospective industrial projects that are being considered, which include mining, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, ports and forestry.

In short, that’s the opportunity. And yes, it’s an opportunity for First Nations. You bet it is. They are important players in the region, and they’ll be partners in this project. But it is an opportunity for all of us.

[4:10 p.m.]

This is a region in the northwest. Well, when I first visited the northwest at length, it was involving an old industrial plant called Skeena Cellulose. It kept people and allowed people to earn good salaries and make profits out of the region that were significant and allowed a lot of people to work and raise their families, generational work that it was. That’s not there any longer.

This is a region that can and should be a wealthy region, and the North Coast transmission line will bring the electricity required. It is not sufficient to take advantage of that opportunity, but it is necessary.

It’s not enough to build a transmission line. Other things need to happen, of course. But it is a generational opportunity, and it would be wrong for us as a generation to say to the northwest: “You can’t have that generational opportunity.” So we’re going forward with this project.

Reconciliation — you bet there should be reconciliation. I believe in reconciliation. But this is also about generational wealth and opportunity and having people come back to the region who’ve had to move away and all of the possibilities for our province, for its revenues, for our health care system and education system, which everybody knows I care a lot about. That’s what this is about.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for the answer.

Perhaps that is more of an estimates question, but man, I spent…. Sorry, that was inappropriate language — “man.”

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: I think it’s starting to kick in. I think I need to go take another pill.

Interjection.

Larry Neufeld: Well, yes. I will stick to the questions while I’m digging myself a hole. Now I’m going to lose my train of thought.

The minister was kind enough to speak of, and I know I’ve seen it in the media as well, these many, many giant-numbered jobs and economic prosperity. Again, going back through and looking at the numbers, that prosperity, those jobs can again be provided through other means, which, through estimates, I’ll be very confident that I can show is more economical than this.

If it is a reconciliation project, I’m not saying I’m opposed to that. I’m asking if that was the primary reason for this, because I just can’t get there on the numbers.

I would say that in addition to the 94 to 96 percent emissions reductions over 2005 levels that Alberta is seeing on their gas-fired electricity…. At what point does that factor into the economic equation from the perspective of protecting ratepayers?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We have an outstanding B.C. Hydro system. This delivers just like all the other transmission lines around B.C. I know I’ve said this before, but the North Coast transmission line is necessary to provide clean electricity to power this region. It absolutely makes economic sense. It is a generational opportunity.

I’ve heard from people. We hear from people sometimes: “Okay. It doesn’t affect me directly.” But people of Terrace still pay and are going to pay for the Interior–Lower Mainland line, for example, recently built. You can make some of the same arguments, I guess, about these lines. Some of the same arguments might be made in the member’s riding for not proceeding with Site C.

Clean electricity as a benefit for B.C…. We have lower prices than Alberta. We have lower prices than Seattle. We have lower prices than Portland. We have lower prices than anywhere else. We have the cleanest electricity system in the world, and we need to grow it. This is a generational opportunity.

They’re not just choosing clean electricity here. The level of renewable projects in states like Iowa and Nebraska and Texas and across the United States, for example…. Sometimes there are those in government who are not that sympathetic to clean electricity and who are certainly not contrary to oil and gas in states such as Texas. They are taking advantage of the enormous opportunity of clean energy.

We’ve got a great opportunity here with all of the possibilities, including future ones, which are becoming more and more economic — like geothermal, for example, which shares some of the qualities of natural gas, and others.

[4:15 p.m.]

I think this is just an extraordinary opportunity. It makes economic sense for B.C. Hydro. It’s the job of B.C. Hydro to build our province, and it’s the job of B.C. Hydro to deliver clean electricity and give electricity to the aspirations and hopes and opportunities of the northwest. That’s why we’re doing this.

Rob Botterell: I have a quick question which I’ll ask. I was reviewing Hansard, and there are over 13, maybe 15, nations that have lands within the proposed footprint of the North Coast transmission line.

The question I would ask is: will B.C. Hydro proceed if the free, prior and informed consent of all the nations on whose territory this transmission line exists is not achieved? Let me ask another way. If some of the nations don’t give their free, prior and informed consent to this North Coast transmission line, will B.C. Hydro still proceed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The process we’re talking about here in section 1 is a partnership between B.C. Hydro and First Nations. That opportunity is being offered to all the First Nations along the line.

On phase 1 and phase 2, there’s different organization of First Nations. That’s their organizational structure, and we’re flexible to address that. These are partnership agreements between B.C. Hydro and First Nations.

Of course, First Nations have the right not to participate in the partnership agreement with B.C. Hydro, not to become part of the joint venture with B.C. Hydro. Although, as I’ve described in the estimates, and the member…. I won’t repeat it.

The opportunity for wealth creation for nations is really valuable, and I think it’s a positive way of engaging. We’ve had, to date, over 300 meetings. We’ll have a whole bunch more. I’ve been in some of them, and I think it’s very positive.

Should a First Nation not participate, B.C. Hydro still has the obligation to consultation on the line. Remember that from Prince George to Terrace is 90 percent a twinned line. There are some issues along the route and other questions. We’ll still have an obligation to consultation that’s in existing statutes to proceed.

We can offer partnership agreements, but certainly, no one is under any obligation to take part. First Nations may feel that there are better opportunities, although this is an outstanding opportunity, given the involvement of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and of B.C. Hydro, for First Nations.

Right now we’re working to see an agreement done. That’s phase 1 and phase 2 of the line. And we’ll be engaging on phase 3 of the line, which is north from Terrace to Bob Quinn Lake. That’ll come later. But it’s our hope to have shovels in the ground next summer and proceed with the transmission line.

Certainly, when you’re talking about electricity to a region, this is what B.C. Hydro does all the time, which is build the position. If we take it out of the First Nations context, they frequently use, for example, expropriation and other things to be able to build transmission and distribution across B.C. in a way that works.

Our goal is to, hopefully, have partners in this project, which would be unprecedented. That’s why we have legislation here, because we’ve pursued this partnership really diligently over two years.

I’m hopeful that we’ll arrive in the true partnership we need, which will benefit First Nations, not just now and not just through the scope of the project or potentially through contracts and building the projects and employment and the benefits of having access to the electricity, all of which are true, but also true partnership on the line.

I think it’s profoundly exciting to do these new things. I’m encouraged that some private sector entities are acting similarly in B.C.

[4:20 p.m.]

Rob Botterell: I guess I’d take you back to the question, which is that…. Certainly, B.C. Hydro will be offering partnership opportunities. I’d be curious to know, at some stage, how many term sheets are signed.

In the event a nation is not interested in that form of partnership and decides, through its governance and through the application of its interests, that it does not consent to the North Coast transmission line through its territory, will B.C. Hydro still proceed?

Hon. Adrian Dix: There are other requirements to work with First Nations in addition to the partnership agreement. It’s not a proxy for everything else. We talked a little bit about non-derogation. I refer the member to the Hansard on that.

First Nations and B.C. Hydro are co-developing environmental studies, for example, and protection plans related to habitat protection, impact avoidance and mitigation measures. This is consistent with the law and the requirements to consult on these issues and also, in addition to the equity opportunity, to have other benefits of partnerships.

The final project agreements will include opportunities for First Nations construction participation and impact benefits agreements. First Nations communities will participate in and benefit from project procurement, training and employment opportunities related to NCTL. If a nation does not want to participate in equity ownership — which is not the same as not wanting a transmission line, let’s be clear — discussions would continue to seek appropriate opportunities for all nations along the line to share in the benefits.

We’re doing the work — 300 meetings, a deep record of consultation; and we’re hopeful and optimistic. That’s the reason why we’re confident that we’ll have shovels in the ground in 2026 and we proceed.

If people don’t participate in the equity opportunity, then we have the continuing obligations of the acts that apply to this project and will be applied in this case by the B.C. Energy Regulator. Those obligations continue as B.C. Hydro builds the North Coast transmission line.

But boy, this is an extraordinary thing, and I encourage members of the House to support it. It’s a unique way of engaging — unique for B.C. Hydro, I should say — with First Nations as an equity opportunity. That’s what we’re debating here in section 1, which is that opportunity.

David Williams: My understanding is that only clean energy will be transmitted through the NCTL. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro is an integrated system which is overwhelmingly clean energy, although there are some peaker plants, as the member will know from his briefings on B.C. Hydro.

The answer to the question, I think, technically might be no, because there are obviously some other parts of the B.C. Hydro system. But B.C. Hydro is essentially a clean energy system, and it has been for a long time. It’s one of its enormous benefits to the people of B.C.

David Williams: Thank you for the answer, to the minister. I just wanted a clarification there, because I’ve heard an awful lot about how it’s going to be clean energy going through the line, in debates and also in the House here today.

[4:25 p.m.]

Anyways, one other question I have is that…. The other question that came up a few times was small modular nuclear. From our position, on our side here, we understand there are cost considerations when it comes to small modular nuclear because it’s an emerging technology, especially in Canada. But saying that, small modular nuclear would not…. You wouldn’t need much of a transmission line, because it would be more localized.

Now, the other question I have for that would be: does he consider small modular nuclear clean energy?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We are on section 1.

Members of the opposition in the second reading debate claimed that small nuclear reactors were a fraction of the cost of clean energy in the North Coast transmission line.

I won’t list off all of the quotes, but there are multiple quotes where members of the opposition said that. I have sought to clarify the record on that because we’re, in B.C., focused on clean, renewable sources — such as hydro, wind and solar and others — that we know work and don’t carry the same risks.

The idea of putting a nuclear reactor at this time…. There are, by the way, no small nuclear reactors operating in North America as we speak — none, zero. To start in Terrace on a fault line, where you would require international and national approvals, where there’s no process — the community might be interested in that, in Terrace — in dealing with nuclear waste would be not the best option and would require transmission as well. While people call these small nuclear reactors, it’s not a secret that they ain’t that small.

In the case of Darlington, the proposal for nuclear energy, roughly the equivalent of Site C, right now, before they even start building it — remember, they haven’t built one in Canada — is over $21 billion.

When the opposition, again and again, said that small nuclear reactors were a fraction of the price of the transmission line in creation of energy, they weren’t just wrong; they were putting forward something that’s completely contrary to what we know. So I’m glad that the member is changing his position on that.

I would say that what we’re doing with the North Coast transmission line in partnership with First Nations, to bring us back to section 1, is something we’ve consistently done and done well in B.C. We build transmission lines well in B.C. We’ve shown that, for example, in the recent Site C project and others, and we’re going to continue going forward with this approach.

I know people speak of small nuclear reactors. We should observe how it’s going in Ontario, and B.C. Hydro will be observing how it’s going in Ontario. But there are none now. They cost way more, they have significant risk for the region, and they wouldn’t make sense for us. That’s why I disagree with the nine members of the opposition who made the case that they could do that at a fraction of the cost.

[Susie Chant in the chair.]

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for clarity on the last question.

We’re both in agreement that small modular nuclear right now is certainly in the infant stage, and it’s something that we should be looking at way down the road because right now we do not know what the costs are.

Anyway, moving on, I have some questions here regarding subsection (2)(c). The bill authorized the cabinet to designate agreements involving transfer or assignment of assets. We’ve already determined that the asset can be a tangible infrastructure, such as towers, conductors, substations or right-of-way improvements, but could it also entail intangible assets, such as future revenue rights or service agreements, contractual entitlements or operational control rights?

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: In terms of operational things, this question has been asked and answered a few times. I’m happy to answer it again.

B.C. Hydro will operate the B.C. Hydro transmission system. The use of the term “rights” refers to rights-of-way that may need to be transferred to the joint venture partnership in the construction of the line. Really, what we’re talking about is that the partnership will, effectively, build and own the line, and then B.C. Hydro will operate the system on an agreement with the partnership.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Yeah, when I was trying to describe, when I said assets…. If it’s a working agreement, oftentimes working agreements won’t be just what’s going through the line. It’s actually everything to do with that portion of line, if there’s a value to it, which could also include land interests such as easement, statutory rights-of-way or tenure rights associated with transmission corridors, because those would all be assets that would be owned by B.C. Hydro and a consortium — in this case, with Indigenous partners.

It also could extend to intellectual property or engineering designs or system-planning tools, because there’s an awful lot. If it’s part of the whole transmission line and you’re phasing phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 and there are different entities to the project, would that not all be considered an asset and also have a value?

My question would be: would not the land or the intellectual rights be an asset that a partner could sell or transfer to another title, to somebody else?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The answer is no. We’ve had this discussion before.

With respect to the asset, it will be possible for the First Nations to transfer their share of the assets to either other First Nations participating in the project or to B.C. Hydro but not outside of that. It was the discussion we had with respect to the amendments, for example, brought forward by the opposition earlier. That’s a significant limitation on the ability of sale.

What the benefit is…. As you know, it’s a depreciating asset. It’s 50 years and a rate of return over that time. So there wouldn’t be…. The joint venture partner wouldn’t be selling other assets except the share of the line to, potentially, other First Nations, should they wish, who are participants in the project, or B.C. Hydro. There’s going to be no market or no selling out or no privatization in that sense.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for the answer, which moves on to the next one.

When it comes back to selling the asset or transferring the asset, what statutory or regulatory mechanism governs the reversal now that the B.C. utility is going to be eliminated, no longer B.C. Utilities Commission? It’s by Governor in Council, I believe.

Can the minister please clarify how the statutory regulatory mechanism governs the reversal process when the asset gets sold or transferred to someone else?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I just said the asset couldn’t be sold or transferred to someone else outside of the agreement, so that wouldn’t apply.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Maybe I can just clarify. My understanding is that it could be sold to another First Nation or sold back to B.C. Hydro. Is that correct?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m happy to go over it again.

Yes, that’s correct. That’s a limitation on the project. It can’t be pieced off. The member talked about intellectual property. It can’t be pieced off and sold in pieces or anything like that.

The partners are the partners, and it may be possible for one First Nation, and you can appreciate that I wouldn’t give an example of names, to sell, to another First Nation on the project, their rights.

[4:35 p.m.]

It’s a depreciating asset, so it would be for less than the original purchase, but they would have got the benefit of that for those years — that’s a possibility — and/or to B.C. Hydro.

Both of those are possibilities that might be in the interest of participants. But other than that, it can’t be sold outside of B.C. Hydro or the participating nations.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for the clarity on that question.

Now we can go back to asset valuation. Will B.C. Hydro conduct the valuation when the time comes to sell the asset? Will the B.C. Utilities Commission review or verify the valuation?

Hon. Adrian Dix: The member refers to B.C. Hydro selling the asset. B.C. Hydro isn’t going to sell the asset.

David Williams: Maybe I’ll just re-explain myself a little better.

Should the time come that a partner with B.C. Hydro wants to sell the asset, say ten or 20 years down the road, who will be doing that valuation on the behalf of the residents of British Columbia or the ratepayers of B.C. Hydro?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, a sale of an asset requires a seller and a buyer. We’ve defined that the only participants in this process are B.C. Hydro and the participating nations. So if a participating nation says, “We want to sell our share to another participating nation,” that would be a discussion between buyer and seller.

What they couldn’t do is sell it to someone else outside of the agreement. This is a point we’ve made a number of times.

In such a case, the BCUC would not be overseeing that process; nor would they do that now. This is, as we know, a new process, but as the member knows — I’ve made it clear — that’s the limitation to buying and selling.

Of course, what would happen…. Because the rate of return, the 9.65, is a 50-year benefit, its value at 50 years is greater than its value at 20 years. We’ve had this discussion. So it would be between those buyers and sellers, but they could be the only buyers and sellers, and it wouldn’t have any impact, in any event, on rates.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

Maybe I’ll just explain myself again a little bit. Okay. When it comes to the valuation, will there be a third party or an independent valuation required? At which stage of the process would that be? If the asset is a declining asset, who decides on what the value would be at the time when it gets sold?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would guess it wouldn’t be sold. But if a nation chose to sell to another nation or to B.C. Hydro, that would be a transaction between them and would be affected…. Clearly, they would be bringing in advisers. Perhaps the member for Peace River South will be back in the business at that point, the business of providing such advice. That would happen then.

I wouldn’t expect that to happen, but it is a potential opportunity for a First Nation to sell to another First Nation participant in the process. That would have to be an agreement. The value of that would have to be an agreement with them. Regardless, it wouldn’t affect the overall ownership of the project or the partnership between First Nations and B.C. Hydro.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

The value that the asset is being sold at would make a difference to the ratepayers that pay their hydro bill every month, I believe. You could turn around and sell the asset for a dollar, if that’s the case, if that was a negotiation between two parties. You want a fair negotiation between parties.

Before I go on here…. Also, when it comes to partial transfers, can a percentage be transferred? I think you may have covered this earlier. I’m not really quite sure though.

If the minister wouldn’t mind actually clarifying that part as well.

[4:40 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, a transaction down the road would have no impact on ratepayers. I’ll just repeat that. It would have no impact on ratepayers.

While the member may be interested in the possibility of such transactions, they would be between two of the participants in the process, and all of the potential impact on ratepayers and the cost of the projects is at the front end. Nations would be allowed to participate in that process, and they would have absolutely no impact on ratepayers.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister. If he can just indulge me a little bit longer.

So we already determined that the asset can be transferred back to Hydro or it could be transferred to another First Nation, but can it be transferred to a non–First Nation private equity or an investment group?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, eighth time lucky. No.

Rob Botterell: I would be interested to know what the…. Presumably, B.C. Hydro would be negotiating partnership term sheets, if it hasn’t already. What are the key elements that you would be dealing with?

There would be, for example, equity, percentage of equity, but in my experience, there would be a variety of headings to the term sheet. It’d be helpful to know the scope of the term sheet.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’re obviously negotiating these agreements, and even though term sheets have been signed, there’ll be a final agreement at the end of the process. The member will understand that. We’re working hard on that, and we’re going to get it done.

What are the issues that are subject to the agreements? Without getting into that, because we’re in the midst of negotiations of those agreements, information is broadly shared in communities because we’re having discussions with First Nations governments who share information with one another and with the communities involved. This is a fairly open process.

What are the considerations involved? There’s environmental; there’s training; there are impact-benefit agreements up front, impact-benefit agreements that are annual; and obviously, return on equity net of debt, which we’ve already discussed at length at the committee here.

Those are some of the agreements that are signed and subjects of the discussion or the headings that the member refers to. Those are some of the headings that are dealt with here.

Rob Botterell: In terms of the headings of the term sheet…. Obviously I’m not suggesting we’re going to get into the detail that is the subject of negotiation, but does one of the headings of the term sheet relate to decommissioning and how decommissioning will be dealt with?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously, transmission lines are different than some other projects, and the member will understand that. This is a 50-year-or-longer project potentially.

[4:45 p.m.]

The decommissioning part of it is the responsibility of the regulator, the BCER in this case. They’re responsible for that, and all will be, of course, subject to the final term sheets. Those issues of decommissioning in a general sense, be it this project or other types of projects under the BCER’s purview in this case, will be the responsibility of the BCER for that part of the project.

Rob Botterell: Another heading I’m curious to know whether the term sheets deal with is cash calls. When you have a major project…. In this case it’s $3 billion. Maybe, then…. Our experience in Site C is that it can end up being quite a bit more. If there is a need for an additional injection of equity, is that covered in the term sheet in terms of cash call provisions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: They’ll be subject to definitive agreements. The current estimate for the cost of the first two phases of the line, which is Prince George to Fraser Lake and then on to Terrace, is $6 billion. The final estimates we’ve put in place were firmly next spring.

We want to be, obviously, as precise as possible, but we’re confident in those numbers in a general sense. That’s what it would be, and that’s at that point. Then how that’s dealt with will be dealt with in the final agreements between the partners.

David Williams: We live in times where cybersecurity and intellectual property rights are a big concern. So when it comes to this transmission line and having multiple people involved having equity shares, the thing is….

What specific protections exist in this legislation to ensure that critical transmission infrastructure and related assets remain under provincial control and cannot be transferred to…? We know it can’t be transferred, other than to another First Nation or Hydro, but can indirectly be controlled by a foreign or non-Canadian entity.

Hon. Adrian Dix: B.C. Hydro will operate the transmission line as it has done for transmission lines since 1960. It will continue to do that.

Donegal Wilson: I’m just wondering. Is there any private land that is being impacted, or that this transmission line impacts private landowners at all?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah, any linear corridor like that will cross some private land, of course. We talked about it earlier, about B.C. Hydro, often in large cities and in rural communities, sometimes having to expropriate land, which they do all the time. That’s part of the process of it, although that’s not the desirable one. But yeah, you’ve got a large linear corridor from Prince George to Terrace. You’re going to cross some private land.

I did say one thing, though, about it. Essentially 90 percent of this corridor is already a transmission line, so you’re twinning it. It’s pretty established as a transmission line. It’s not like you’re trying to build, oh, I don’t know, a bitumen pipeline across the North or something.

I digress, but I just did that because the member for Kelowna-Mission was here.

Yeah, you’re going to cross some private land, and B.C. Hydro does that all the time. There are appropriate processes to deal with that. But in this case, we’re talking about the twinning of an existing transmission line, so a lot of that has already been established.

Donegal Wilson: That means that all the landowners that are impacted by the twinning of this line are already aware and have been consulted or know that this is coming for them, this new transmission line?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Like on all such projects, the properties division of B.C. Hydro will be working with private property owners and will, over the course of building the project, address any issues that might happen on that side.

Obviously, like every transmission line that’s ever been built in B.C., it has some impacts on that. That’s why B.C. Hydro is so well experienced in dealing with it.

Donegal Wilson: Is it not normally done through BCUC? Is it usually B.C. Hydro themselves that are actually handling the consultation on other lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yeah. It’s B.C. Hydro.

Donegal Wilson: Because this bill is kind of an exception, I’m wondering if this is going to allow the government to bypass any kind of environmental assessments.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’re in section 1, and what section 1 does is, and it’s the section relating to the North Coast transmission line project, essentially allow this to be a partnership or joint venture between B.C. Hydro and First Nations.

The member will recall that we had another debate in this place around Bill 14 that addressed regulatory issues in the spring, and the Legislature passed Bill 14. That dealt with those questions and addressed, principally, renewable energy projects in B.C. That was the debate where that happened.

This is a debate about NCTL and, specifically in this section, about the partnership with First Nations along the route.

Donegal Wilson: I’ll try reframing the question then. The NCTL that we’ll be twinning…. Are there going to be any environmental assessments that this bill allows us to bypass, or will it still be the same process as other lines?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Environmental assessment won’t be applying, but all the other permitting and regulatory requirements are applied to this project. This bill doesn’t have anything to do with that.

Donegal Wilson: Lineal features like power lines have significant impacts to migration corridors and things like that. The twinning of this line — is this going to include an assessment of possible wildlife impacts, or is this within the existing corridor?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we’re working with First Nations, and I just answered that question at length, so the member can look at that in the record. Also, the BCER works on those questions as well.

What we’ve done — the member will recall the Bill 14 debate — is that various statutes that apply to renewable energy projects such as this one are under the auspices of the BCER. So those are requirements under a number of acts, including the Wildlife Act, and that will be the responsibility of the BCER. The appropriate permits will be required.

Of course, there is less impact of a twinned line than there is of a new line. That would be, clearly, the case. Nonetheless, the BCER oversees the permitting of such projects and the application of those laws.

Donegal Wilson: Because it’s the twinning of the line, how much wider are we having to make the corridor? Are we significantly increasing the corridor, or is it within our existing corridor?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I think it’s fair to say that it’s wider. I mean, it’s two twinned power lines. They may not be together all of the time for specific circumstances. We have people who build transmission lines who do that work. It’s clearly a wider corridor to have two transmission lines than one.

What it is, is already a corridor, for the most part, and 90 percent of it will parallel the existing line. You would expect two transmission lines to have a wider corridor than just one.

Donegal Wilson: I had a person reach out and ask what, specifically, will be happening with the timber that we’re taking, then, as we widen. Is it going to market? How are we handling that timber?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re co-developing an environmental plan with First Nations as part of the discussions we’ve been having over the last couple of years in meetings, and the disposition of the timber is part of those discussions.

Obviously, B.C. Hydro has a lot of experience with this because of their long practice of doing transmission lines, including, most recently, the Interior–Lower Mainland line. In this case, we’re also having those discussions with First Nations around the disposition of timber.

Donegal Wilson: For clarity, then, is the timber going to go back into the project expenses, or is it part of the equity agreement with First Nations?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as noted to the previous question, the timber disposition is something we’re talking about with nations. That will be an issue in those discussions over the next few months.

Donegal Wilson: Can I get some clarity on that? I don’t think my question was really answered there, actually.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I think the answer was pretty clear to that in previous questions.

We’re doing environmental work with First Nations along the route, and the timber disposition is part of that. Obviously, if those things are under discussion, we’re not going to give a definitive answer, if that makes it clear, to a question which, of course, is not at all about section 1. I’m delighted with that.

That’s the situation. Certainly, by the time we get around to estimates next year, I’m sure we’ll be able to talk about those specific details. This is about, really, the partnership agreement with First Nations.

Donegal Wilson: I agree, and I think it’s relevant in the sense that it sounds like the timber is part of that partnership.

I’m just wondering. Is that a part of the initial partnership, or is that a future agreement?

I don’t really understand how the…. Where’s the money going from the timber that we’re taking from this? That’s the question.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’d just say that those issues are being talked about right now. As I said in my previous answers…. It’s kind of asked and answered. I know that the member is asking: “Well, in spite of the fact that you don’t know the answer, what’s the answer?” It’s not that we don’t know the answer. Those questions of disposition are under discussion right now.

I’m happy to keep the member informed as we go forward.

Donegal Wilson: I guess we’ll leave that for future conversations.

Will the joint venture also be a shared risk? If this project goes billions of dollars over budget, is that a shared risk amongst all the joint venture partners, or is that something government is going to cover for any cost overruns?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve talked about this a number of times before. This is a joint investment in the asset between First Nations and B.C. Hydro. The final determination of the costs of the project will come in the spring and be subject to final agreements. Obviously, we get closer and closer.

B.C. Hydro does the transmission line business a lot and has a pretty good determination of it. I was asked when we started, and I thought it was important that members have this information as we started. It’s my expectation that the cost of the project from Prince George to Terrace, our best estimate right now, is $6 billion. The final estimates will be subject to the final agreement, which will come, we hope, in the spring, with all First Nations, in advance of shovels in the ground next summer.

[5:00 p.m.]

Donegal Wilson: Last week the federal government announced a $139 million loan, which seems a very small portion of our $6 billion project, representing about 2 percent, I believe, of the total project. Do we anticipate that the federal government is going to come to the table with more?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Yes. The agreement that was talked about from the Canada Infrastructure Bank is, in fact, financing. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has a small advantage on basis points. The member might rightly say that it’s even smaller than was suggested in her question. But it’s a start to the work we were doing anyway with the Canada Infrastructure Bank on this important project, and we’re happy that that’s happened. It’s for the pre-works.

The federal government has indicated their strong interest, that they see this project as being in the national interest, and this was an important consideration for B.C. Often our projects don’t get counted as national projects in federal processes because they’re not interprovincial. Our projects often go from B.C. to the coast or south. In this case, the federal government has, I think, so far named 11 or 12 projects, and we know four or five, depending on how you look at it, are from B.C. That’s a pretty significant thing.

Their main contribution to the project, in our view, would be financial contribution, because Bill C-5, which is the federal bill, really doesn’t affect the NCTL. We have the regulatory authority here, so their interest and involvement, they would understand, and we understand, is that. We’re optimistic about working with the federal government.

I want all members to understand this. This is what this project is about. That’s $6 billion from Prince George to Terrace, and more going north, so we do want the federal government to be involved in cost-sharing that. We’ll be working hard with them. The fact that they’ve actually named the project, understanding that that’s their main contribution to the project, is very good news for British Columbia, for First Nations, for ratepayers, for everybody.

Donegal Wilson: I appreciate the conversation.

As the project was originally, I think, in its inception, at about $3 billion, and we’re at $6 billion to get to Terrace, our new number, how confident are you in that $6 billion number? What will happen if we get to the spring and you find out it’s $12 billion or $10 billion?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, we won’t. That’s not the nature of the project. But B.C. Hydro will continue to get more precise in its estimates. It could be less than $6 billion. It could be somewhat more, but we think $6 billion is a pretty good estimate of where we are.

Donegal Wilson: But if it is significantly more, what does that look like for taxpayers or ratepayers? Are you going to come back, or are we just going ahead anyway?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I don’t want to repeat the debate we’ve already had about the opportunity and why we’re doing the project, because your colleagues have heard these presentations before. What we did…. The $3 billion wasn’t an estimate. It was a placeholder in the capital plan to make sure it was there and existed in the plan. And $6 billion is the best estimate we have now.

Those estimates in construction process become more precise, and we’ll have that information in the spring. I don’t expect it to be significantly different than the existing estimate, but it will be more precise.

Donegal Wilson: My last stab at it. If it is significantly different, though, what is the process? What happens at that point? I don’t understand. If it comes in like Site C or the wastewater treatment plant, where we thought it was this much but it’s double that, what’s the next step?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, as you’ll recall, on Site C, initially the government came in at $8.335 billion, and then eventually it went to $16 billion in that case.

[5:05 p.m.]

I would say the transmission lines at Site C came in very much on budget. The issues were significant issues around the dam, which is, while in one place, a significantly more complex project than building a transmission line, albeit a transmission line with thousands of towers. That’s why what we’re talking about is a large project.

B.C. Hydro has done this work over time, and this is the estimate that they provided to me. I asked for an estimate. I think members of the Legislature wanted to have that in debate, and I think the press and the public will want to have that.

We’ll be more precise in the spring, but I don’t think the estimate will be substantially different than what it is now.

Donegal Wilson: We have some significant projects that have been listed as part of this project, and I’m just wondering what happens if one of those projects doesn’t go through or we’re not able to secure that partnership funding from the project itself.

We have a list of projects that this power line is intended to enable. What happens if one of those falls through a regulatory or doesn’t get approved?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, those projects contain way more power than the line will provide. It’s our expectation that not all of the projects, necessarily, will happen but that a significant number will. That’s the work that was done in 2023 and 2024 and is being done now.

Larry Neufeld: This may not make sense to those that have changed rooms, but I would like to allow…. I’m not sure how much our friends at Hansard are allowed to edit the official record.

Before I went away on break, I stated I was going to take a pill. I wanted to state that it was a cold and flu pill. There were some comments back on what that pill might have been. It was cold and flu Advil. That’s a disclaimer.

Interjections.

Larry Neufeld: Yes. Yes. It had caffeine in it, I believe. I’m not certain, but I believe.

I’m seeking some clarification on this point from the minister, and I don’t know if this was misheard. Honestly, I did not take the time, as my colleague did, to review Hansard on this one.

Is the minister able to confirm that LNG Canada phase 2 is or is not currently on the interconnect for the North Coast transmission line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It is for some of its facility, but not for its compression.

Larry Neufeld: Therein lies the confusion. Thank you for that.

We did talk about this earlier, and I don’t want to belabour the points. With respect to secured commitments for the energy coming from this line, do we have anything signed, any type of deposits, anything more firm than an expression of interest from any potential clients on the north coast?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, I would expect B.C. Hydro to go out to them in a month or two to get the initial security deposit. We have, obviously, strong interests, and the member will have been following the various projects in question. But we’ll be, obviously, in this process, seeking security deposits in the next month or two, which will be important for the work.

The member will know that, for example, mining companies involved in these projects often would have to interconnect with the transmission line. So they’ve got lots of planning as well.

The expressions of interest we’ve received are positive and significantly beyond the capacity of the line. It’s our view that the line will, in fact, have many customers, going forward, and we’ll be seeking security deposits as we go along.

That’s an issue we’ll address in estimates soon, even if it’s slightly unrelated to the contents of section 1.

Larry Neufeld: Thank you to the minister for that answer.

[5:10 p.m.]

With respect to agreements that would be signed in clause 1, would those security deposits be payable prior to? Would it be used, that financing, for Hydro’s initial construction phase?

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Larry Neufeld: I will acquiesce to the minister’s suggestion that my next one might actually belong in the next section as well.

Other than the call for power 2025, can the minister, or through B.C. Hydro…? Is there an anticipated amount of energy that would be being supplied from Site C?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Site C. That’s an 8 percent increase in power, electricity. Call for power 2024 — that’s another 8 percent. Call for power 2025 — that’s another 8 percent.

Also, it’s an integrated system, as the member will know. The IRP includes, for the information of the member, a special scenario for the north coast considering future industrial growth. Then as part of that, you’ll find that information in the IRP, which will inform our discussions, no doubt, next year.

By 2040, the scenario forecast 2,300 megawatts of new demand and a system energy shortfall of 14,300 megawatt hours. To meet this demand, B.C. Hydro has the calls for power, has more energy efficiency, has Revelstoke unit 6, upgrades to G.M. Shrum, batteries and new resources such as wind and energy.

So yes, we are in it. In addition, on firm power, of which Revelstoke is an example, we have our own expressions of interest in that in terms of firm power, which is an important addition to our system.

Just to review, therefore: 10,000 gigawatt hours a year of electricity from the calls for power; the capacity of Site C, which is 1,100 megawatts of capacity. Revelstoke 6 unit, while under environmental review, is expected to be completed in the fiscal year 2034.

Energy efficiency programs, which are significant and have been significant over time and have been demonstrated, will save 2,000 gigawatt hours, enough for 200,000 homes. Upgrades to G.M. Shrum units 1 to 5 will add another 100 megawatts by fiscal 2035. As I just mentioned, B.C. Hydro closed its request for expression of interest for new firm baseload power in September of this year.

So that’s a big plan.

The Chair: If I can just remind members of the committee that when the minister or the member is actually speaking, if other conversations could not be held. If you need to have a conversation, please go out to the corridor, and then come back in. I do appreciate that.

Thank you so much.

Larry Neufeld: I fear that this was answered to a certain extent before we took the break, but if you’ll indulge me, this is important for my understanding.

Will customers of the new transmission line be given priority…? Sorry, not customers, eequity partners on the power line. Will they be given priority access in any way to power that is transported? I’m thinking about dual ownership of different projects. Say, for instance, if a nation purchased….

Sorry, I’ll let you answer.

Hon. Adrian Dix: No.

Larry Neufeld: I don’t know that we actually have broached this one. Customers of the new transmission line. Will there be any change in the requirements? I’m thinking of Ksi Lisims as an example here. Will there be any change in the requirement for them to meet greenhouse gas emission reductions?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, the net-zero policy — and we haven’t talked about it here, but we talked about it in estimates earlier this year — has been clear for some time, and this wouldn’t have any impact on that. Obviously, it means there will be more electricity for industrial projects in the northwest.

I’ll remind the member, of course, that there’s not a final investment decision on Ksi Lisims. Obviously, they would have responsibility, as well, should the transmission line be built, to hook up to that line and an obligation under the environmental assessment to electrify, given their application to do so. That policy has been clarified this year and was a discussion that we had in estimates and with other members as well.

David Williams: To the minister, subsection (3) states that once cabinet designates an agreement under the section, the agreement is valid and binding despite any other act. Maybe the minister can clarify whether subsection (3) retroactively overrides other legislation, specifically for the northwest transmission line, or whether this authority could also apply to current or other future hydro projects beyond the North Coast transmission line.

Hon. Adrian Dix: The clause only applies to phases 1, 2 and 3 of the North Coast transmission line.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister for making that clear.

Limits on cabinet override authority. I appreciate that some of these questions may have been put forward earlier, but for clarity on clause 1, please indulge me.

Does subsection (3) override provisions of the Utilities Commission Act, including BCUC oversight requirements for transmission expansions?

Hon. Adrian Dix: It has nothing to do with the BCUC.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My second question would be: does it override B.C. Hydro’s own governing statute, including restrictions on the sale or transfer of public utility assets?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Only with respect to the North Coast transmission line, which is the subject of the legislation.

David Williams: Thank you to the minister.

My last question along this line of questioning is: are there any statutory limits to what cabinet may override through this mechanism, or is its authority effectively open-ended once designated?

Hon. Adrian Dix: As discussed, it’s limited to the statute, which is limited to the North Coast transmission line.

The Chair: Recognizing the member from Kelowna-Mission.

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much, and nice to see you, Madam Chair.

The minister, I hope, will forgive me if I take a step back a little bit more to first principles and to some of the big aspects of the project.

Could the minister remind us of the projects that are envisioned to be enabled by the North Coast transmission line, the named projects?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. Adrian Dix: Obviously we’ll be seeking, in the next month or so…. The member, I think, without referring to his presence or non-presence, would have heard the debate we had around security deposits. Obviously, we’re not listing off all the names of the projects because these are all projects largely without FIDs but that are going forward shortly.

Significantly, the industries we’re talking about are mining, liquefied natural gas, hydrogen ports and forestry. They include significant port projects around the Port of Prince Rupert. I’ll be happy to give members, and I have initially when we talked about the projects….

There’s a series of port projects around the Port of Prince Rupert. There are significant mining projects, and I’ve referred to some of them here. They include projects such as FPX Nickel, which is a significant project.

Other projects that have been discussed include projects that the member will know in discussion of mining industry, projects like Galore Creek and Schaft Creek and others that are significant projects. One of the reasons you’d want to get to Bob Quinn Lake is to be available for those very significant projects.

So a significant number of mining projects, port projects, hydrogen projects, forest projects and one…. It’s not a secret as to what that is, Ksi Lisims LNG, which has also not got a final investment decision yet but is working hard towards that. It certainly has an environmental assessment certificate.

Those projects are on the list. I have in Hansard the detailed answers I’ve given about the value of the projects and where they sit.

There are also, obviously, other opportunities for smaller projects than that in the region. The region doesn’t have enough electricity to meet that demand into the future, and we have a full discussion of this issue in the IRP that was just provided and is on the public record with the B.C. Utilities Commission. It lays that out as well.

Even though we’re talking about the North Coast transmission line and the provision that’s about the partnership with First Nations, I’ll just give the member that general answer about the aspirations.

The reason I think it’s fair to say…. You heard what the Mining Association of B.C. said, what other representatives of the mining industry and owners of some of those projects have said. They see this as a significant project, and I think it is, particularly for mining critical minerals in B.C. That’s why the federal government is supporting it. We’ve made that case.

For other projects, obviously not all those projects necessarily will go ahead, but we believe that there will be significant incremental demand and that having clean electricity for that will be hugely valuable. For many of those projects, it’s seen as a prerequisite to the decision to proceed.

[5:25 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: Thank you very much. That’s a helpful explanation.

Could the minister expand a little bit on the chicken-and-egg dynamic of demand and of sufficient number of projects being committed to merit the investment of taxpayer dollars? I’d like to just better understand how the minister is thinking about what constitutes a critical mass of projects, moving forward, in order for the line to be fiscally prudent on the part of the government.

How is that being thought about? How is that being talked about? How is the government contemplating the trigger points at which the project is felt to be de-risked from a long-term-demand perspective, from a capital cost recovery perspective?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’ve had these discussions, but I’m happy to engage in this dialogue with the member now.

B.C. Hydro did an extensive assessment of potential demand in 2023. It clearly showed the need for the project.

There was a discussion — I had it with the member’s colleague — about the certificate of public convenience and why we’re proceeding without that. That occurred in 2023, and B.C. Hydro and the government made the decision to proceed in January of 2024, made the announcement at the northern resources conference, which is coming up again shortly.

B.C. Hydro has laid this out. It’s now part of its integrated resource plan. My view is, and it is…. I don’t know if the member’s agriculture reference is the right reference, but I would say this. That this is a critical moment for B.C. We need to proceed. We can’t have projects — mining projects and critical minerals, at a time when they’re essential to the future of the B.C. economy — waiting because we decided to delay getting started on getting electricity and energy to those projects. That is an element of risk.

I would say, as minister, that B.C. Hydro, in its history, has been through multiple periods.

In the 1960s, that was all risk. W.A.C. Bennett developed two rivers at once. The private sector would not do it in any reasonable way. That was a period of high risk and, obviously, high cost to the rate base. We paid for many of those dams. We see it differently now, but that was a period of high risk.

Subsequent to that, really after Revelstoke and then the Kootenay projects of the early 1990s, B.C. Hydro has been more of an operating company, with, I think, the exception of Site C. And it’s a really good one. While energy prices were up, in the 2001-2017 period, 54 percent above the rate of inflation, that reflected, in part, some of the challenges, to put them that way, with IPP projects at the time. In general…. Rates went up, but they were still low by North American standards, and they have been really much lower, 12 percent below the rate of inflation since 2017.

We’ve been through this period where Hydro is just an outstanding operating company. That period between 2008 and 2024 was one of flat growth in load. What happened in the system in that time? Well, what happened was we did very well in conservation. LED lighting was part of that. The massive increase in population we saw, particularly in the last five or six years, was mitigated by conservation measures — although it was still significant; we saw that — and the decline in energy consumption by the forest industry.

I mean, the pulp mills were a big part of why the dams were built in the ’60s, and they fuelled a lot of wealth in communities and a lot of families’ lives for a long time. What we’ve seen…. I’m happy to share it with the member, because it shows this in charts. The share of industrial load from different industries, and the forest industry, has seen a significant decline over time. You’ll see that reflected if you review the integrated resource plan.

We’ve been through a period which is not without benefit to B.C. Hydro, because we’re depending on heritage resources that are relatively inexpensive, but is mixed for the economy in B.C., really starting in about 2007, 2008, and events that occurred in the forest industry over that time.

Now we’re entering into a new period, where Hydro has to be like it was in the 1960s, in my view, which is more a support of province-building, a vehicle to ensure that we take full value of the economic opportunity, largely private sector, in the province, and that B.C. Hydro can play a critical role in that. They certainly have a similar vision of this at Hydro-Québec.

[5:30 p.m.]

That’s the distinction I’d talk about, and that was a little bit of a long way of saying it. I promise the next answer will be shorter.

Rob Botterell: Just a friendly observation that it might be a good idea to reconcile B.C. Hydro’s list of who the nations are in phases 1 and 2 and the nations you mentioned in Hansard the other day, because there is some difference there between the nations. I don’t want to dwell on that. I just wanted to flag it.

What I would like to ask is: what nations have not signed term sheets in relation to joint venture agreements as of today? I guess, as a follow-up, in a more general way: what is your or B.C. Hydro’s target date to complete that process of engagement, consultation and conclusion of either joint venture agreements or IBAs?

Those are my two questions.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I would say in terms of…. The term sheets aren’t the final agreements, so we’re continuing to work on the final agreements. Largely, term sheets have been signed with phase 2 nations, with the exception of a couple. We haven’t signed term sheets with phase 1 nations as of yet.

If you’re thinking of the line, the four nations that are involved in that, and the Nazko are involved as well, on the first phase of the line, that’s phase 1, we haven’t signed term sheets with here. We’ve largely signed term sheets, with some exceptions, on phase 2 of the line.

That’s essentially where we’re at. We’re working on it now. The sooner we can do it, the better. We’re working hard with the nations to see that that happens.

After the term sheets are signed, we’ll have to move on to final agreements, which will include a final estimate of the cost of the project and other things. That we expect to happen in the spring, and shovels in the ground in the late spring or early summer of 2026.

Gavin Dew: The minister provided an informative but long soliloquy on power demand in the province, which seemed rather casual in its enunciation of the impact of our declining forestry sector on power demand.

I wonder. If the government stopped killing the forestry sector and it was actually able to reach its capacity, what would be the implications for load on the system?

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, what I was describing was the situation, putting the issues on the table. Really, since the 2008 period, we’ve seen a decline in energy demand for the forest sector — really, before that. We’ve seen flat industrial demand. That’s why there’s urgency for B.C. Hydro to support economic development in the province and why this opportunity can’t be missed by B.C. Hydro.

There is nothing casual about that, nothing casual about the impact to communities. It has been felt in ’04, in ’05, in ’06, in ’07 and through that period and through the present in the forest industry.

I don’t know if the member feels that that decline in demand in ’08 and ’09 and ’10 was the result of the government. He may have a different view of that. I also think that we’ve seen that over time and over multiple governments, the decline in industrial demand.

There are projects that will benefit from the North Coast transmission line that are forest industry projects, and I think that’s a positive thing.

I don’t agree with the member’s characterization, but I won’t debate it here, because this is on section 1, which is about First Nations partnerships on the North Coast transmission line. I completely disagree with that characterization. We believe in building the forest industry, and I think everyone has.

But I think it would be wrong not to understand what has happened to the load in British Columbia and that there has been a significant decline in load since, really, the nought years.

[5:35 p.m.]

The member may want to ascribe that blame to Rich Coleman or someone else, but I prefer to look at it in historical ways and say that what it tells us is that we have to, yes, take action on the forest industry. We have an outstanding Minister of Forests who’s doing just that and people working in communities.

I don’t need to describe all that, doing all that. I think that’s important. Also, take advantage of opportunities in mining and in ports and, yes, in LNG and other opportunities for the province. That’s what we’re doing.

Gavin Dew: The minister has touched on the importance and the idea of B.C. Hydro supporting economic development. I think that certainly brings us into a relevant, broader subject.

The government’s second backgrounder to the Bill 31 news release concedes that there is a 7,000 megawatt backlog of industrial demand waiting for electricity. Those 7,000 megawatts represent tens of thousands of jobs that could already be contributing to B.C.’s economy — mining, forestry processing, manufacturing, hydrogen production and data centres that can’t move forward because B.C. Hydro doesn’t have the generation capacity, not the transmission capacity. In my initial second reading speech to this bill, I illustrated the idea as we’re rationing power like wartime butter.

I’m just wondering if the minister can clarify. Does this transmission line solve the backlog of generation capacity?

Hon. Adrian Dix: We’re having a good open debate here about things. We’ve had a number of questions in a row that have nothing to do with section 1. Nonetheless, I think it’s useful that we have a good debate in the House about issues. I’m always up for that.

We did a call for power in 2024, equivalent to the size of Site C. Sadly, the opposition appears opposed to those projects. The member’s leader, the member for Nechako Lakes, has described wind projects, that are used all over the world and are a growing part of the world energy market, as “unicorn farts.” He can reflect on that, perhaps, that he’s against us building that generation in the system.

We’re doing a second call for power for an equivalent of Site C. We’re taking action to produce more generation. But you need transmission too. The idea that you can have generation without transmission distribution of that power is not so. It’s just not so. You need both.

We are engaging in generation. I just listed off, in answer to the previous question, all of the projects that are underway. They’re reflected in B.C. Hydro’s plan, the largest capital plan in the history of B.C. Hydro. A lot of that has to do with distribution and transmission — upgrading, in some cases, a 1970s urban system. That’s needed. If you look at a community such as Brentwood in Burnaby or any number of communities in Surrey, you see the massive, massive need for substation upgrade, which is important.

There’s important work to be done on the distribution side, on the transmission side and on the generation side. We’re doing that work, and hopefully members of the House will be supportive of that. I don’t think it’s in his riding, but we’re…. Obviously, we have a wind energy project close to his community as well. We’re doing that work, and I expect Fortis to be doing some of the same generation work shortly and moving forward with projects shortly, and I think all of that is good.

So yes, we need more generation, and we’ve got generation projects. Yes, we need more transmission. We have this project. And I am surprised, again, and the member can explain it, at why the opposition would oppose the North Coast transmission line but support the Interior–Lower Mainland line, support project power coming down from the North to the Lower Mainland but not power going across to the northwest. That seems to me to be not the right position.

As members of the opposition will note, all of the line, the first two phases of the line, is in Conservative Party ridings. I reflect on this, but not too much.

We’ve got to proceed with all of them. That’s what we’re doing. You see that reflected in our ten-year plan and our IRP and all the projects we’re announcing and the things we’re going forward with. The idea that you don’t need transmission is, I think, incorrect. I don’t think the member is really suggesting that.

[5:40 p.m.]

Gavin Dew: I appreciate the minister’s disquisition on right positions. I’m reminded often of his ever-changing position on the Trans Mountain expansion project.

I like to remind him regularly that he now supports dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully loaded tankers, which he would once have fought with every tool in the toolkit. I remind him that he is supporting 19 new pump stations and an expansion of that particular pipeline, which he once fought against.

I do like to remind him of the wrong position that lost him an election and caused him to not become Premier. Whenever we talk about politics and positions and things of that nature, I particularly enjoy bringing that back up again for him.

Now, one of the interesting dynamics about what we’ve seen government say on this particular project is…. Many of us attended the First Nations Leadership Gathering last week. The Premier spoke at that gathering and spoke about the North Coast transmission line, and he spoke about projects that it would enable.

One of the things that I think we’re all trying to figure out is: does a project that the Premier speaks about being enabled by this transmission line in order to build the political case for this transmission line have some form of pre-designation or pre-approval from this government? Does it become a designated project if it’s on this transmission line?

There was a lot of uncertainty and a lot of doubt from Indigenous leaders who were in that room and at that event, who were trying to understand exactly what the relationship is between the advancement of the pipeline and the status of projects that might be enabled by or might justify, commercially or politically, the transmission line.

Can we just get a little bit more of an understanding as to exactly how that will work and exactly how government will provide a level of confidence, in particular to nations and to stakeholders in that area, around, again, the relationship between their advocacy for a transmission line enabling projects and the relevant permitting processes for individual projects that might advance would-be users of power moved on the line?

Hon. Adrian Dix: I’m not sure, in terms of designation, what the member is talking about. We passed a bill, Bill 14, in the spring session of the Legislature, that put renewable energy projects under the B.C. Energy Regulator.

As we, I think, demonstrated at committee stage with members of the opposition, it meant that this was similar to what had gone on with the oil and gas industry in the late 1990s and was continued on in subsequent periods, which is to provide a single-window regulation for multiple pieces of legislation that a project would deal with. This was for renewable energy projects exclusively — all the projects, by the way, that Bill 14 applies to, to date. I’m expecting in the future to have a portion of Indigenous ownership, as a matter of interest. So those are projects under Bill 14.

In February of 2024, the Premier named, I think, a list of 18 projects in the initial response to Mr. Trump. You can see, if you look at all those projects, how they’ve advanced over time. Many are private sector projects, but they include the North Coast transmission line, which you can see is making progress.

But the rules apply. The B.C. Energy Regulator will be responsible for the North Coast transmission line project, but all the acts and approvals and permitting apply to that, as has happened before, although it’s a single-window regulation in that case. There isn’t an environmental assessment of that project. It’s going through and will have its appropriate certificate to go forward. But essentially, the North Coast transmission line, which we’re talking about here, is that project.

What people in the mining industry have said to me is that they want to proceed with projects. They need energy, and they need electricity. So we’re delivering to that region energy via clean electricity, and I think that’s good news for everybody.

They will, in many cases…. In the northwest, there’s a lot of work being done with the Tāłtān. This is in the area of my colleague the Minister of Mines, but I’ll say this. They are exceptional projects. They’re involving their own First Nations consultation, which is very exciting, and involving outstanding companies like Teck and Newmont and others.

[5:45 p.m.]

The North Coast transmission line. This legislation, in this section…. There’s a second section, which we’ll get into in a bit. The member talked about AI. I think he was talking about the second section. But in this section, it is dealing with a partnership between First Nations along the line and B.C. Hydro to build the line, and I think that’s good news for everybody.

Gavin Dew: I’m not quite sure I heard an answer to my question, but I’m also willing to concede my question could be rephrased.

Help us understand, as stewards of taxpayer dollars and as people who want to ensure that there is full confidence in permitting processes, in review processes for any and all projects, whether we support those projects or don’t support those projects. I am personally a very big believer that process connotes legitimacy when it comes to projects.

Again, whether we lean towards supporting a project or don’t, as a government, as an opposition, it’s crucially important that the public, that stakeholders, that nations can have confidence in the process that results in a project approval or not approval. This is where I’m a little bit hung up. What I think I am….

Again, I’m a big supporter of mining. I’m the son of a mining engineer. Mining put me in diapers as a child. I’m very big on mining. With that said, I also recognize that the perception of an imperfect, flawed process, the perception of prejudice in a process can fundamentally undermine the ability of that project to move forward with the consent of stakeholders, of nations and of other levels of government, etc.

Again, the perspective that I think I heard articulated in some of the conversations that I had with First Nations and I have heard with other stakeholders is that government will be committing and investing taxpayer or ratepayer dollars to build a transmission line to service projects. That makes government pregnant.

Once Hydro, or government through Hydro, has built a project, what does that do to the incentive structure or the ability of government to review projects without their review being affected by the fact that they have pre-committed capital and pre-committed the construction of the transmission line?

Again, what I think we heard some concern around at the First Nations Leadership Gathering was that the Premier appeared to be presenting as a fait accompli the idea that the transmission line was a package with the projects that it would power. From a commercial perspective, that makes sense. You need power. But from a regulatory perspective, from a permitting perspective, from a review perspective….

We did spend a considerable amount of time this spring, as we dealt with Bill 14 in particular, just wanting to understand process integrity. We raised concerns about how projects got designated. Obviously, there are worlds in which that legislation or the idea of that legislation could be expanded. Perhaps it could even include natural gas.

Help us understand or help stakeholders and nations understand how government as a whole will balance the fact that it is effectively investing or pre-investing in enabling projects with the need to review those current and future projects in a way that is free from any prejudice or idea of prejudice, in that government is already pre-committing to this investment. Help me understand that, because that is a question I heard a lot of from stakeholders and Indigenous leaders last week.

Hon. Adrian Dix: Well, of course, almost not one word to do with section 1, but we’ll give it a go because we want to promote understanding of this project.

[5:50 p.m.]

The process was this, as explained a number of times in the committee.

In 2023, B.C. Hydro reviewed, with companies principally seeking electricity in the northwest, the significant review of demand, which is reflected in multiple documents. We found that demand was more than sufficient to proceed with the North Coast transmission line. That doesn’t mean that every project which expressed interest will go ahead. If it did, the North Coast transmission line probably wouldn’t be sufficient for all of that. But it was sufficient expectation, based on what we understand, for the government to proceed with the North Coast transmission line. The Premier announced in January of 2024 we’re proceeding with the line.

Earlier than that we started an engagement with First Nations. The member refers to First Nations. We’ve had more than 300 meetings with First Nations on the North Coast transmission line. It’s important to do that pre-work so that we can get going at the appropriate moment, and we have engaged this process of First Nations ownership.

We’re not alone in that. Other companies, most notably recently Enbridge, have created equity partners amongst First Nations.

With respect to those projects, the rules apply. The B.C. Energy Regulator is an outstanding regulator. It has been around in B.C. as the Oil and Gas Commission and the B.C. Energy Regulator for a long time. It’s their obligation, if a project is under their jurisdiction, to ensure that the Wildlife Act and the Heritage Conservation Act and other relevant acts are properly dealt with, and they will be in all cases.

Those obligations in the law don’t change because the projects are in the northwest. That doesn’t mean we don’t want to make more progress on permitting times and other things across the economy. That’s an important consideration, which I presume the member and myself share. The improvements in permitting times and having single-window regulation on renewable projects is a good thing in that it applies the law but it applies the law in a way that allows us to make the right decisions for the public.

Just to give you one last example, the Ksi Lisims project, which has been a subject of discussion here in the committee and is a project in the northwest. That was a significant environmental assessment review. I don’t think anyone involved in that project thinks that…. When you look at the profound work that was done by nations, by communities and by the environmental assessment office, some truly outstanding work…. It was a significant process. It ended with a number of conditions — I can get the exact number but, certainly, around two dozen conditions — to the certificate, which reflect a thorough and comprehensive project.

He’s right. That’s required for the project to have credibility, absolutely required, and that will continue.

Gavin Dew: Thank you to the minister.

There were 300 meetings with First Nations, yet last week there were Indigenous leaders reacting to the Premier’s characterization of the project with concern, out of the belief that the political convenience or political preference or project designation, such as it may be, could result in projects not having the level of diligence that they expect.

Having had 300 meetings, why does the minister believe there is still that concern from nations and from stakeholders about process integrity? I ask the question not to impugn the integrity of the process but simply to illustrate the importance of making sure that as we progress through the line, if it moves forward, and through projects enabled by it…. How do we ensure that there is process integrity, the perception of process integrity and, equally importantly…?

[5:55 p.m.]

Again, coming from a background of major projects, including one that the minister was adversarially opposed to, I’m very conscious of the fact that sometimes best efforts to expedite projects actually end up leading to opposition.

I think, in reflection, the minister would actually likely agree that the Harper era federal government’s efforts to streamline the National Energy Board processes for pipelines actually led to significant public blowback that probably actually made the projects harder, upon reflection, because there were concerns around process integrity. There were concerns around the political prioritization of the projects balancing off with process and with the level of diligence that people expected. We saw that on the ground. We saw that with stakeholders. We saw that in opinion research. We knew that to be true.

Again, I’m just trying to understand how the minister and how the government is balancing its eagerness to present an agenda of economic development and to tell the story of projects enabled by the North Coast transmission line with ensuring that there is the reality, the perception of due process and that there are not stakeholders or nations in the region who feel as if the government’s strong support for the NCTL, strong desire to show proof points of the necessity of the NCTL, could bias or create prejudice or create undue prioritization of projects in the region.

Again, that’s not an indictment of the projects. I’m simply trying to understand how government is wrestling with that challenge of trying to expedite, prioritize, tell the story of economic development, encourage economic development and also ensure that there is an appropriate level of comfort from stakeholders and nations and that, again, the eagerness does not actually lead to more pushback that could ultimately lead to project delays, because that dynamic has played out on other projects.

Hon. Adrian Dix: By doing it, in this case, on section 1. We’re enabling partnership agreements between the government and First Nations for the first time ever — between B.C. Hydro, I should say, and First Nations for the first time ever. The 300 meetings are about that. There are First Nations on the line. Some of what the member may have heard may be concern about other projects. Certainly, we would’ve heard it from some nations around Ksi Lisims. So that’s true.

I would also say that if you look at the work of the environmental assessment office on Ksi Lisims and the work of First Nations and the work of everyone who participated, there’s a tendency to view projects through the lens of the result and not through how diligent the process was that was in demonstration of the work of the environmental assessment office, which, I think, all British Columbians can be proud of. We’re doing a review of that legislation now, but I have to say that those public servants and the communities that get involved and are encouraged to work on those projects are outstanding.

In this case, we’re on section 1, which I hope members will soon support. I look forward to that, from all sides of the House. We’re enabling another tool in doing that, which is allowing for joint ownership of a major public infrastructure project in the region, which will leave benefits in that region that are lasting and profound for First Nations. The work we’re doing together on the specifics of the environmental plan for the project — it’s remarkable work. I think it’s a model for public and private sectors.

But it’s not in isolation. I would argue that there are many private sector proponents that are doing just that right now. One of the reasons we’re having success on the First Nations side and on the other side is the willingness of private sector proponents to work on these things.

Since 2018, we’ve been building in B.C., and it’s not finished yet. LNG Canada 1 —enormous work was done and continues to be done on that project. The Cedar LNG project — enormous work, unprecedented. We wouldn’t have heard of such a project before. Can you imagine? An LNG project 51 percent owned by the Haisla First Nation, electrified, the lowest-emission LNG in the world.

[6:00 p.m.]

These are all examples of that work, and we’ll continue to do that work because it’s in the economic and social and political interests of B.C. and the interests of reconciliation, which I also hope that opposition members will be supportive of.

Donegal Wilson: I’m going to put it a little more bluntly. I was also at the First Nations Leadership Gathering, and I think the question was specifically around….

[The bells were rung.]

I’ll reserve my time.

Hon. Adrian Dix: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

The committee rose at 6:01 p.m.